Nicole Small

This conversation is closed.

Asexuality: An Ideal Future?

I've recently realized that nearly all the information about sexuality I've observed has failed to touch on a very important orientation. Many people either fail or refuse to consider asexuality a sexual orientation since there are so many opinions as to exactly what it is. Many believe that Nikola Tesla was asexual. That theory, I believe, should be considered more carefully.
Could asexuality be a path for human evolution? By asexuality, I'm referring to the most logical definition (for procreation purposes.) According to a Wikipedia interpretation, it could be viewed as having no uncontrollable sexual/reproducing urges, yet still possessing the ability to do so if necessary. Some prefer to be involved in a romantic relationship, but don't feel sexual urges nearly as often as the average person. On most occasions, when aroused, an asexual person might prefer D.I.Y.
There are many reasons why a person might feel this way towards sex, however, asexuality due to an overactive mind is the preferred cause. As an example, Tesla was supposedly "celibate" his entire life. In turn, he accomplished more than most of us can comprehend. If only everyone was so productive. Hans Rosling, in his TED Talk, "The Magic Washing Machine" addressed the revolution that the washing machine brought about for women's education. By freeing so much time, women were able to dedicate themselves to activities like reading and learning.
Sex takes up FAR more time in our lives than we might realize. We are much like the domestic house cat. When in "heat," the female will "flaunt." The male, in response begins to "prowl." This is reflected in humans as females decorating themselves (spending many hours and dollars) and males constantly searching....all with one thing in mind, regardless of whether or not they act out in the end. Is asexuality just an abnormality in the thinking process or could it create a biological branch from the current path of evolution? Would it be beneficial or harmful?

  • thumb

    Lejan .

    • +1
    Aug 25 2012: How could asexuality ever be beneficial for a species which continuation and survival is based on sexual reproduction?

    I honestly don't understand this ideal of a future. Just because mankind made some minor technological development, which can be reset on a single day, every day, we should get rid of our natural instincts because of 'productivity' reasons?

    This appears to me like the final outcome of some management consultancy.

    Let's just free up all this wasted time of coupling habit, so that we can produce even more products nobody really needs! What a beautiful future!

    Efficiency, whatsoever, is what we could learn from the ancestor of the domestic house cat. Because cats are very efficient in hunting, they are able to 'heat', 'flaunt' and 'prowl' as their instincts lead them to do. And, even better, they are able to sleep in idle mode most of their time. And, judging from my own cat, she really seems to enjoy her life to the highest extend!

    So if we would finally use our technology to free up our time, instead of pushing further and harder for the sake of efficiency and profit of just a view, we could make better use of all of our lifes for personal enjoyment and fulfillment and this without the need of any asexuality at all.

    It is a misconception to believe that only distraction is the cause that the world is not filling up with Tesla's, Newton's and Einstein's all over the place. I do agree that education is one of the most important factors for society to evolve, yet I disagree with your concept of asexuality.

    As it is most likely that evolution will not create asexuality by itself - as it was its worst case scenario - your concept would have to enforce it to take place either by some bio-chemical treatment or by genetically manipulation.

    At that day of its realisation I would go against it and I assume I would not be alone in doing so...
    • thumb
      Aug 25 2012: This is exactly what I anticipated would come of my theories. People are so closely related to animals that it's impossible for them to comprehend a future without the instinct for mindless rutting. People don't realize that the creation of the brain gave us the ability to evolve beyond the human form. Our brains are literally biological supercomputers which interact with the quantum world by pulling and clumping quantum particles to change the physical form using a force that is caused by thoughts (based on external observations.) It's apparent that our curiosity as a whole race is in technology. As funny as it sounds, YOU are more likely to be surrounded by technology that ME. I've NEVER sent or received a text message with a phone. I've NEVER sent a picture with a phone. I think people look silly, staring down so hard at their's as though their minds are trying to become one with the information on the screen. I believe that our bodies want to remain animals, but our brains have other plans for us.
      • thumb

        Lejan .

        • +1
        Aug 25 2012: I choose not to have a cell-phone myself, as I have no need to own one at the moment. Yet I did learn how to operate this technology, how to send and receive messages, pictures and videos. How to set up email accounts correctly and how to log on wireless networks.

        I neither damn nor heighten technology yet I care about its intention and usage and the responsibility which comes with it.

        Different than you I do not consider people closely related to animals, by the given fact, that we are part of the animal kingdom and therefore nothing but animals ourself. Anything else is distinction by definiton, arbitrarily and egocentric.

        Coming from a different historical background than you do, any thoughts about the creation of a superior human race, even as a whole, does not synchronise with my ethical convictions, as it is clearly the perversion of an arrogant, ignorant and regardlessly trusting belief in technological and past-evolutionary progress.

        Even though your intentions may be heading towards a better world-society, to eliminate hunger, poverty, crime and war, if this was to the cost of humanity it would be nothing but the highest form of technocratic fascism ever invented.

        Any species at the brink of denial of its origin, its natural essence and instincs is in denial of itself.

        So if you don't wan't to participate in human rutting, don't go for it. If you don't wan't to spend many hours and dollars on your decoration, don't do it. If you don't like sexual encounter, don't have it.
        That's fine with me and I assume, that's fine with most of the others too.

        Yet what gives you the right to call all those who choose to live their sexuality 'mindless'?

        And, even worse, to assume that you would hold the knowledge what would be 'best' for all mankind?

        By reading your thoughts about the human brain and quantum physics I wonder how much of this is actually based on scientific knowledge and esoteric wishful thinking.

        Supercomputers are no role model for humans!
        • thumb
          Aug 27 2012: "I do not consider people closely related to animals, by the given fact, that we are part of the animal kingdom and therefore nothing but animals ourself. Anything else is distinction by definiton, arbitrarily and egocentric."

          "Supercomputers are no role model for humans! "

          I couldn't have put it better myself. I would add however, that I do believe that a period of adult asexuality six months to a year maybe, can do wonders for putting the ego in check. I would also suggest that Tesla was not asexual necessarily, he often suggested that he simply could not find a match which challenged him on an intellectual level, and blamed society for this, because it had poorly educated, and degraded women for so long.

          He did also suggest that he feared the power women hold over the sexual realm and even once suggested that democracy was going to turn us into a race of "queen bees"... so he may have had asexual leanings, but I think it's a bit unfair to call him asexual simply because he was celibate. Other choice words could include, unloved, underappreciated, undervalued, and unsupported.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • +1
    Aug 25 2012: I would love SOME natural way to stop the overpopulation that is threatening us ALL today.
  • thumb
    Aug 25 2012: The only think I can think of to contribute here is to recognize that sexual drive is a drive. Like eating or breathing. There are centers in the body that regulate these drives. So if someone is worried their drive is out of synch, ruling out a physiological reason and then a psychological reason would be the first steps. If you think about the drive for nourishment, it takes a lot to override that drive. Yet no one thinks anorexia is normal or an appropriate deviation in structural DNA. Same thing with the drive to breath. Anoxia is not conducive to life. If the drive centers for breathing have been damaged, ventilator support is the only option.
    So something may be wrong, hormonally or physiologically or psychologically. If you rule those variables out, then perhaps there may be some truth to asexuality. But I am not sure all those have been addressed.
    • Aug 25 2012: Good point Linda, I agree sexual drive is very similar to the drive to eat. As with over-eating it can take over in some instances and lead to damaging behavior. It doesn't have too much impact on the survival of the individual, but has a huge impact on the survival of the species. I'm wondering though as our population increases might we see a natural shift towards asexuality which will help keep our numbers down?

      This may also apply to human homosexuality since other species will naturally produce more same sex couples as a population starts to become unstable due to limited resources. Some biologists are studying emergent properties in DNA expression which only manifest under certain conditions. I wonder what more will be discovered.
      • thumb
        Aug 26 2012: Interesting idea. I think the birthrate will go down because of fertility issues. Many people are spending a lot of money because of fertility. But I was not thinking about some other factors that you mentioned.
  • thumb
    Aug 24 2012: As for asexuality being the ideal, well that depends on what your ideal is.

    I've enjoyed the sexual nature of being human.

    While there are issues with controlling appetites I still prefer being able to taste and deal with that than having none.

    I understand for some people their orientation or preferences is problematic.

    I have a personal hypothesis that in addition to the same versus opposite sex scale there are many other points that could be measured in regards to many other things we might call preferences or fetishes even pedophilia.

    While I feed sorry for people attracted to children I don't accept them acting on their urges with children, just like any form of rape or coercion, made worse because of a power imbalance.

    But less controversially it is amazing what else turns people on more or less. From hair colour, hair quantity, colour and shape and all sorts of scenarios.

    I spoke below about orientation not being binary. But sexuality is more complex than a line between extremely gay to extremely hetero.

    There are so many dimensions to sexuality you might be able to build a landscape up by placing all these dimensions side by side and measuring orientation on the each dimension horizontally (gay/straight, fat/skinny etc) and intensity on the vertical scale.

    Each person may have a sexual internal map or landscape.
  • thumb
    Aug 24 2012: I guess if your sexual drive is 0 it is kind of meaningless to imply orientation towards the the same or other sex.
    Although even a minute amount of attraction leaning one way would indicate some orientation.

    Sexuality is complex.
    I don't see sexuality as black and white.
    Some people are strongly attracted to the opposite or same sex and others less so.

    Maybe it would be more accurate to use vectors rather than the binary gay or straight.

    Direction and strength of attraction.
  • thumb
    Aug 24 2012: Excellent recent work indicates that sexuality exists on a continuum from asexual to hypersexual. It is part of our endowment from nature and it is not easily altered. One researcher doing work on asexuality is Tony Bogart and some of his work was published in Time magazine a couple of years ago. I do not know his direction since then.

    As a personal experience, for whatever that might be worth, I can tell you that my physiology went deeply to sleep when my husband of many years left -after decades of being joyfully alive. . Thus, the definition of one good woman from another might have NOTHING to do with volitionary self restraint.
    • thumb
      Aug 24 2012: I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't quite understand what you meant by "Thus, the definition of one good woman from another might have NOTHING to do with volitionary self restraint." The sentence didn't make sense to me.
    • thumb
      Aug 24 2012:

      I read this and I had to take into consideration that since he is somewhat of a "pioneer" where this is concerned and the fact that he, himself doesn't claim to BE of that orientation (and his other interests in study have branched into "pornography, high-risk sexual behaviour, sexual crimes, and the origins of sexual orientation.") Not only that, but simply the fact that he's appeared on the Montel Williams Show makes me question his judgement.
      His claims that "They were more likely to be female, poor, nonwhite, and/or poorly educated" is severely flawed when taking the whole world into consideration. The tests were conducted in Britain and the numbers reflected that of a country who's population consists of a far higher volume of whites over all other races, as well as a different political system, education system, welfare system, etc. You can't apply these numbers to the world. In addition, I think you have to consider counting only those who have CHOSEN not to procreate before you start including people who only feel like this "sometimes." I feel his studies were pretty skewed. Thanks for making me aware of this, though! I'm always interested in learning something new!
      • thumb
        Aug 24 2012: I do not negate your points about rigor but as this idea is yours too, I wonder if you might acknowledge that research, especially unpopular research has to start somewhere?

        Please also note that we are Canadian and Montel Williams may not be as mainstream for us. Researchers generally like the chance to talk about their work no matter where. Please note that TIME is not too shabby.

        This is one decent human being. I know both he and his wife, who does excellent social justice psychology work, personally. I offered you information not a chance to publically embarass people trying to do good work.

        Skewed could also apply to a point of view that advocates that others choose to give up procreation like a bunch of Quakers. What happened to that faith? Oh yeah, they suffered from declining attendance.
        • thumb
          Aug 24 2012: It's possible that we could someday choose to procreate in laboratories as opposed to the womb. I was thinking in a far more "futuristic" sense than the Quakers or those who choose asexuality as an expression of religious beliefs. I suggested that we could use the added time as a "tool" for accomplishing the seemingly distant technological promises.
        • thumb
          Aug 25 2012: OMG, Brave New World Part II.

          Just for my peace of mind .... I have eight kids ... would I go to jail.

        • thumb
          Aug 26 2012: Please note that I'm not a malicious person and had no intention of publicly embarrassing anyone. People tend to take his findings and apply it to the world, when world figures might indicate different results. I suppose the word "skewed" was a bit harsh and for that choice in words, I extend an apology.
  • Aug 29 2012: Asexuality is a maladaptive aberration and not beneficial at all.
  • thumb
    Aug 27 2012: Excuse me, but this speaks to a fundamental arrogance of our time. NO the American founding Fathers probably did not foresee nanotechnology BUT they were NOT stupid. They had the most important parts - and that is a profound understanding of human nature.
    That is the BIGGEST part of it all.

    (I could not answer in the chain as you had no reply button) and this is my final post here.
  • thumb
    Aug 26 2012: I think that we can go no where in most discussions unless we all dealing with the facts which are not only 'out there' but easy to find. Let's talk facts. Here is a good TED talk which explains what appears to be the facts which are taking a crazy battering here on this discussion:

    Sexuality and Asexuality have a lot of FACTS that are not so easily dismissed.
    • thumb
      Aug 27 2012: Thanks for the informative video, however, it's just a bit off from what I'm suggesting. I'm not indicating that the cause is due to PHYSICAL differences like a common birth defect. I'm saying the changes occur by shifting your thoughts willfully. Some people are so curious about the world that they begin to get the same joy from the Eureka effect as they would from sex. Scientists, writers, musicians, artists and even body builders like Arnold have said that the elation they get is similar to the joy received from sex. I'm not saying that we immediately give up procreating, but if more and more people chose to spend more and more time learning, exploring and inventing, then through evolution, we could end up with several different outcomes depending on countless possibilities. Among those possibilities is that some day, similar to the sci-fi movies, we might design a way to leave our bodies. Another possibility is that as we evolve, our organs will shrivel up and we'll be forced to find another form of reproduction. I guess that's why- as crazy as it sounds, people's descriptions of grey aliens makes sense to me. I can understand their claims that the aliens have no sex organs, tiny mouths, speak telepathically and absorb nutrients through their skin rather than oral ingestion, etc. If I could travel into the distant future, I would not be surprised to find that grey aliens are "human."
      • thumb
        Aug 27 2012: Please, NICOLE!

        You cannot dissect the human life soooooooooooooooooo easily. These are facts of human physiology and this woman took this understanding all the way to connections with the American Constitution and considered even political perspective. i will always know that I tried.

        You do realize that many on TED do spend their lives learning and IF what you are saying is a possiblity it will not happen volitionally?
  • Aug 25 2012: There may be a time when this comes to pass, we'll have to wait and see. The argument on both sides has equal merit since the experience is a very subjective one. I know people who are very caught up in this "rutting" and their lives seem to be the better for it. Others have had nothing but bad experiences and I can understand their aversion. Some won't have many urges to begin with, even though for the time being I believe this is a minority experience. In my opinion this may either be an ideal future or a veritable nightmare, purely hinging on point of view.
  • thumb
    Aug 25 2012: Part One-
    The following is an excerpt from an email I sent recently, attempting to explain my views to a Pentecostal. Some of the language I use herein was adjusted to help a religious person understand the Science behind my theories:
    "It has been proven and a functioning prototype has been made which shows that with the proper transmitter and receiver, we can use visible light waves like those created by LED (LED lights are the easiest visible light for us to control right now) to send and receive information in wireless form. Visible light has a much larger spectrum than radio waves. The spectrum is actually the amount of space within a wave that is available to contain information. Remote controls have an information transmitter, but no receiver. The TV has a receiver and a processor to translate the information it receives from the remote control, which causes it to perform functions like on, off, volume and channel changing. So, now we know that visible light can carry and contain information. Here comes the crazy part:"
  • thumb
    Aug 25 2012: Part Two-
    "The Big Bang is an observable fact. The Big Bang was a sudden introduction of visible light to inert matter and potential energy that scientists call dark matter and dark energy. These are like building blocks waiting to be molded by the light from explosions like the Big Bang (which indicates the possibility of countless other universes.) What I have come to believe is that the light from the Big Bang might carry information within it, like a blueprint for the final outcome of the universe. The CONSCIOUS mind was designed to act as a receiver and processor for the information within this light. In a simpler, proven example, we can say that light is made of photons. The active universe was created by the introduction of light (photons; likely containing information) to the inert matter and energy. Life evolved to create a brain. The brain evolved to create eyes-the key to observing the world. These eyes acted as biological receivers that observed light. This directed the brain to develop a new portion of itself in order to process and translate the information that the eyes received. We "evolved" to receive and process the information that is transmitted within light."
  • thumb
    Aug 25 2012: Part Three-
    "Is it possible, then, that inside of the photons, we'll discover more hidden information like a quantum blueprint? Can our brains create the technology to use as a receiver and processor for this information so that we understand what it's saying? Is technology an external extension of the brain, itself? Is technology part of our evolutionary process that will allow the consciousness to have no physical boundaries? I believe that the key to evolution is entirely centered around the brain and has little to do with the body (beyond physical survival.) If no one ever died, what would be the reason for procreation? Could the information within light be creating the physical world and conscious minds who would then use technology as a step in carrying out the "grand design?" If light contains information, then we need to learn the language of this information and design a way to understand it. Technology is an extension of the brain that is tuned to receive and interpret different types of information in many different codes or "languages." Technology interprets these "languages" so that our brains can understand it."
    • Aug 25 2012: If every wave held the blueprint for it's own existence as matter, maybe we could start looking for the "wave riding the wave" so to speak?

      Everything may exist potentially, until the act of observation "crystallizes" it into matter. It might take only a tiny amount of energy to start this, like a minute flaw in the surface of water causing a cup to boil over when superheated. Matter may be a rule-limited cascading phase change effect initiated by the act of observation. When I say "observation" I don't mean just human observation, I refer to the presence of matter causing this effect itself. Interesting to think about at least.
      • thumb
        Aug 26 2012: What you're saying- about the wave within the wave is exactly what I'm referring to. That internal "wave" could be transmitted information that is waiting for us to receive it, process it and understand it in this new "language." I'm only suggesting the possibility of blueprint-type information existing within the light. It's a wild theory, I know, but this is the very reason why I consider Science to be my "religion." Science- in and of itself indicates multiple possibilities. There are multiple dimensions and maybe multiple universes, etc.
        I think what you're talking about with crystallization is similar to a fractal pattern on a quantum level. As far as "observation" goes, I believe that matter is considered "observed" when light interacts with it. It sounds like that's what you were saying, but I just wanted to simplify it a little further.
        • Aug 26 2012: Hmm, as a child I wondered if there were another digital wave riding electromagnetic sine waves, if so it might be of a very low amplitude, so not easily detectable. Life is expressed through DNA which is both digital(base4) and analog(protein), might that stretch further than DNA and be more a universal rule? If not, then how the heck did DNA's ACGT ever emerge from an analog universe? Might matter itself be coded in this way on a much smaller scale? Just posing questions I have no answers to, but it's interesting to think about sometimes.
    • thumb
      Aug 26 2012: I think I understand a little more about why you consider "Science" your religion.
      • thumb
        Aug 26 2012: Thanks. I consider myself almost ultra-science-minded. I understand that I have a very uncommon belief-system. Though I base my beliefs off of scientific discoveries and theories, the science I choose to comprehend/study is on a quantum scale- not macro. It can't be observed without the aid of technology.
    • Aug 26 2012: Light can carry information, just as a sequence of 0's and 1's can carry information for a computer, however a random string of 0's and 1's have no meaning without design by a human, similarly light from the big bang would only carry meaning if it were intelligently designed... In order for you to believe the theory you described above you must believe in intelligent design at this fundamental level.

      also the energy and inert matter you refer to as receiving the message of the light would have to have been intelligently designed in order to receive this coded light in some sort of meaningful manner. Same goes with the human eye/brain receiver.

      I don't mean to be cruel, but this is not science, it raises more questions than answers, and they are questions that aren't based on any observable facts, ie. they are not hypotheses but speculations on cosmic destiny, or as you put it, grand design.

      You seem like a nice person Nicole, I don't want to crush your spirit, or belittle you, but yes, I think I also understand a little more about why you consider science your religion.
      • thumb
        Aug 26 2012: I'm not saying that there is other "information" (besides photons, which the brains receive and process as information; translating it into a "language" we understand) in the light from the BB, but I'm saying it's not beyond the realm or spectrum of possibilities. I'm also not arguing that there is a god. I'm saying that maybe not ALL of human INTUITION will be proven wrong.
        We might communicate to computers with 1's and 0's, but I think photons communicate with us in a different language on a quantum level. I believe, in essence, that we (consciousness) came from quantum information and in the end will become quantum information within light.
        • Aug 26 2012: Ok, so you're stepping out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy which I can respect as an exercise of the imagination.

          I leave you with a friendly warning: Nothing is beyond the realm or spectrum of possibilities. Not God, not the flying spaghetti monster (may you be touched by his noodly appendage), nothing!

          Philosophy as a thought exercise is fine, philosophy as a way of life will lead to emptiness.

          You cannot base your life on possibility, for all is possible. Life must be based on probability, nothing has meaning otherwise.
  • thumb
    Aug 25 2012: I understand what your point is now Nicole.

    35 years ago I watched "Enemy Mine"
    • thumb
      Aug 25 2012: I'm not following your reference to Enemy Mine. I own it, by the way. What I'm referring to is not reproduction on a single-sex level. Please read the three-part explanation I just posted above. Thanks for trying to see this concept in a new light.
  • thumb
    Aug 25 2012: I guess I'm ready to evolve and leave the mud behind. Is it possible that we came from information and we're instinctively trying to change ourselves back to information by creating technology, immersing ourselves in it and combining ourselves with it? The Big Bang released LIGHT which was so powerful that it created intense heat. Harald Haas has a TED Talks video here, called "Wireless Data From Every Light Bulb." I think that photons could be considered information that our brains evolved to translate (acting as a receiver (eyes) and translator (newly developing portions of the brain.) I believe that it's possible for a quantum "blueprint" to be embedded in the light from the Big Bang, which could explain what we're seeing as "creation" and "evolution." The information from this light could be what's driving the changes in our brains in order for the universe to preserve itself once it's stopped moving and is at the end product (maybe it has some sort of fractal pattern to it when it stops, as the new Big Chill theory seems to indicate using Quantum Graphity and the Lattice Model.) When you combine the new Big Chill theory with the existing Big Bang theory, Quantum Graphity, information-to-light-to-information and the discovery of the Higgs Boson, my hypothesis makes so much sense, it's freaky. Unfortunately, Quantum Physics and Quantum Cosmology are two of the most difficult fields to just pick up and start studying out of the blue. I've been intrigued by it for around 9-10 years, now and the ideas still slip out of my head while I'm trying to grasp them. When I first started learning this stuff, I didn't really know WHAT I was supposed to be understanding. After repetition and diligence, I can make sense of these new theories and discoveries and find that they reflect my previous knowledge; just from a different perspective (with seemingly greater possibilities than I'd predicted before.)
  • thumb
    Aug 25 2012: Sex is the whole point of being alive.
    Video games and TV are time consumming, get rid of them quick.
  • thumb
    Aug 24 2012: I could be thinking too wildly for mainstream acceptance of the idea. Like using your brain; using your sex organs is addictive....I guess there's just a really great difference in the level of addiction (where the majority is concerned.)
  • Aug 24 2012: Would we achieve more if we had diminished sex drives?

    I think it would definitly free up a lot of time. Whether we use that time for more 'productive' activities seems up for grabs. From what I have seen in my life, when someone loses one distraction (say their computer breaks) they are more likely to find another distraction (trashy television) than be productive (read a book). I'm not saying everyone would but it seems like the people who would be more productive are probably quite productive already.

    I think a better theory to test would be what if people were more open to sex? I bet we could take the large chuck of time required for the 'flaunting' and the 'prowling' out of the equation. More free time plus the benefits of more 'excercise' and lower stress levels, now that's a win-win.
    • thumb
      Aug 24 2012: Imo

      It would take recoding our DNA, unless we try a social experiment,i'm sure lot's of people who are less driven will try it but will the more driven be able to adhere to the conditions or be able to,interesting.
      • Aug 25 2012: Any of these ideas would take huge steps to accomplish.

        And while I'm instinctively resistant to anything titled 'social experiment' as a species we have proven remarkably able when we direct our attention at something. Eradicating smallpox and the moon landing are two achievements that come to mind.
        • thumb
          Aug 25 2012: I remember watching something back in the nineties,my memory is vague if not jumbled on it but i'm sure it was a documentary about something called the "Three bridges"

          Bridge 1 Mapping the human genome

          Bridge 2 Understanding and preparing

          Bridge 3 Changing the genome

          As far as i can tell we're between 1 & 2

          all i remember is that it was quite serious.
      • Aug 25 2012: I don't mean to take your comment too lightly but all I can compare this to is the South Parks' Underpants Gnomes master plan:
        Phase 1 - Collect underpants.
        Phase 2 - ?
        Phase 3 - Profit.

        It's a solid plan but there is a major issue with how to execute it.
    • thumb
      Aug 24 2012: I think your suggestion is THE ONLY theory that's been explored by humans (as a whole) since the first philosophical thought on sexuality. I know that very few would choose this way of life, which makes me wonder if it's "instinct" or "feelings" that drives the opinions of the majority or is it truly logical contemplation?
      • Aug 25 2012: I wish I had a better answer but our steps toward sexual liberation seem meager indeed.

        First* you could only have sex with your wife/husband with the intent to have children. Then concessions were made where a married couples can have sex without the intent of producing children. That was progress! Then it was overlooked if you miraculously gave birth six months after being married. Moving forward! Then maybe you could remarry if your spouse died. Progress!....Skipping ahead to today, we still ostracize people who are 'too' promiscuous.

        I'm still in the camp that we haven't gone far enough to test this idea, hit the critical mass if you will. But I can't differentiate this from the people who think we haven't given enough tax breaks for the trickle down theory to work or the ones who think that we haven't loaned enough money to the banks to make them honest.

        *Very loose definition of first...
    • thumb
      Aug 25 2012: But how much of our activity, our desire to succeed motivated by our competitive sexual nature, or to have more resources, to be a more attractive partner.
      • Aug 25 2012: In this thought experiment I was assuming that there were no hidden side effects like that.

        Long ago the less prolific were weeded out of our gene pool. After years of gene competition I take it as a given that our desire to be better than our neighbor is an attempt to prove that we are more suitable a mate.
  • thumb
    Aug 24 2012: I thought that male/female interactions was a much preferred model on the evolutionary scale rather than a singular procreational system which would be susceptible to variable inconsistencies down through the generations,in other words the line would wear out,this is complete speculation on my part Nicole, a mere guess at evolutionary biology but i think i see your point if it's about how we seem to think it's weird or that we tend to judge others as something wrong with them if they are not sexually active or don't have a partner and that they are not living a full and active life?

    I know lots of single people getting things done faster than they would if they had a partner,they seem to be happy.

    Would this help? though you would have to pay for it but it might give you an idea for searching for it across the net where someone might have uploaded it for free somewhere.