Sexual attraction vs romantic attraction

[James972]

So culture is not an end all,

nobody said it was??? Do you have any idea what your subject is?

 

[James972]

So culture is not an end all, and at best is an appeal to populism fallacy.

wrong of course culture must reflect genetics or we would all die.

 

[James972]

do you have anything that shows they are linked as opposed to commonly occurring together.

sex and love are linked naturally by evolution which is why Engles called it sexlove.

 

[James972]

So what evidence do you have that sexual attraction and romantic attraction are link as opposed to not linked but commonly occur together?

if they commonly occur together very frequently all over the world after a million years of evolution then they are linked by definition. You need to rethink everything I'm afraid.

 

[James972]

The two are not linked, but do often occur together.

the often occur together because they are linked by genetics and a culture that reflects that genetics

 

[maquiscat]

What is it with you splitting up posts? Is this some ploy to up your post count? Or do you have a hard time actually responding to a single post with a single post?

nobody said it was??? Do you have any idea what your subject is?

Yes. My subject is about the types of attractions and their relationship with each other. Do you have any idea what the subject is?

wrong of course culture must reflect genetics or we would all die.

Really? So what changed in genetics to cause the change of high heels from being part of men's fashion to being part of women's fashion? Fashion is a part of culture and so there must be a reflection of genetics for such a change to occur. Or what part of genetics does hip hop culture reflect? Gangsta culture? What genetic shift occurred to cause the cultural change of marriage being a business transaction and arranged, to being done for love?

sex and love are linked naturally by evolution which is why Engles called it sexlove.

First off Friedrich, not Fredrick. Although looking further, it seems the name got "Americanized" to Frederick when Origin of the Family was translated, but that is simply going off the cover image. Secondly when I went to look him up, this thread was the fifth entry in the Google search. LOL

That noted, from what I have seen so far, admittedly little, he is not noting that the two are link inherently. He is simply acknowledging a commonality of occurrence within the proletariat class, as he notes that sex occurs within the bourgeois sans love.
Additionally, the use of and the common occurrence of prostitutes, from the base street walker to the courtesan, shows that sexual attraction often occurs without romantic attractionand on a pretty regular basis. Modern man has taken this further with the whole "free love" ideal, and "friends with benefits". So sexual attraction without romantic attraction is a common occurrence that I should there for all to see and can only be denied by the most blind of fools.

if they commonly occur together very frequently all over the world after a million years of evolution then they are linked by definition. You need to rethink everything I'm afraid.

This argument is the very definition of the correlation/causation fallacy. As I examples before, marriage and procreation are not linked. People can and have procreated without marriage, and people can and have married without ever procreating. This has occurred all over the world after millions of years of evolution, and yet they are not linked. If they were linked then neither could happen without the other, or at the very least one would be required for the other. You don't need to rethink. You need to think.

the often occur together because they are linked by genetics and a culture that reflects that genetics

You are not offering any evidence here, merely using circular reasoning. I refer back to my original questions at the beginning of this single post (of which you will break up again). What are the genetic changes that have occurred in humans that reflect all of the cultural changes that have occurred in just the last century alone, yet alone over the course of the last millennium? If culture is a reflection of genetics, then a change in culture means a change in genetics.

 

[James972]

Really? So what changed in genetics to cause the change of high heels from being part of men's fashion to being part of women's fashion? .

I guess you didn't know that evolution is the result of experimentation????

 

[James972]

What genetic shift occurred to cause the cultural change of marriage being a business transaction and arranged, to being done for love?
.

its called evolution. When people were poor marriage had to be for money as a matter of survival. When people got richer they could afford to act on their feelings of love also for survival. Interestingly in the beginning love was a tawdry, often adulterous, or between slaves, ie outside of mainstream concerns with money marriage. And, hip hop culture is obviously ghetto survival culture. Is this a kindergarten class?

 

[James972]

So sexual attraction without romantic attraction is a common occurrence

and every human being on earth would agree. SO??????????????????????? We must eat too and if its at a 5 star restaurant that is much better than at McDonalds. Culture genetics makes us idealize romantic hetersexual love well over prostitute sex. Do you understand?

 

[James972]

If they were linked then neither could happen without the other,

what you are trying to say is if they were linked 100% of the time sex love marriage procreation would always occur together 100% of the time.
This is submoronic given that evolution is based on less than 100% for it to work.

 

[James972]

then a change in culture means a change in genetics.

yes over time this must be occur. And????????????

 

[maquiscat]

Just can't help yourself can you? Are my single post too much for you to process as a single response?

I guess you didn't know that evolution is the result of experimentation????

If done by man yes. Breeding is nothing more than accelerated intentional directed evolution. Evolution by nature is not experimentation, as such is a deliberate act. Natural evolution is simply that which survives enough times to breed continuously. Doesn't answer the question of what changed in the genetic structure that brought about the high heels first as men's fashion and then later made it women's fashion. You are making an assertion of culture reflecting genetics without support. Just your say so.

its called evolution. When people were poor marriage had to be for money as a matter of survival. When people got richer they could afford to act on their feelings of love also for survival. Interestingly in the beginning love was a tawdry, often adulterous, or between slaves, ie outside of mainstream concerns with money marriage. And, hip hop culture is obviously ghetto survival culture.

While sociologists do talk about a thing called social evolution, it is not the same nor is it tied to genetic evolution, which is what is commonly referred to when using the word "evolution" by itself. And I won't argue that our moving from a position of finance based marriages to emotion based based marriage are not the result of social evolution. And if you have been talking social evolution then you need to have been clear about that from the start. Behaviors are not genetic in nature, they are taught. Culture is all about behaviors. Sure we can point to a few instinctual behaviors such as fight or flight, or the suckling instinct of infants, but by and large, behaviors are taught. For that matter, if culture is a reflection of genetics, then how is it that a person from one culture and learn and pick up the culture of another? If culture is a reflection of genetics, then to acquire another culture would mean a shift in genetics without a passing on of the genes to mutate/recombine.

Is this a kindergarten class?

Given the logic and responses you are bringing, I would have to guess so.

and every human being on earth would agree. SO??????????????????????? We must eat too and if its at a 5 star restaurant that is much better than at McDonalds. Culture genetics makes us idealize romantic hetersexual love well over prostitute sex. Do you understand?

Better is a subjective value. Healthier, is objective, but not everyone thinks healthier is better. They might think taste is better and that McD's has the better taste over the 5 star. However, the need to eat does not automatically link to any given source of food. You are effectively saying that romantic attraction automatically leads to wearing white for a wedding. Not only is it not true (in many eastern cultures white is a funeral color not a wedding color), there is no actual link. It's a straw man. A strawman made through a parallel, but a strawman nonetheless.

 

[maquiscat]

Just out of curiosity, is anyone else following this still, or is it just James and I left to our little lonesome?

 

[maquiscat]

You must have posted these when I was making my other response, otherwise I would have included them with the above.

what you are trying to say is if they were linked 100% of the time sex love marriage procreation would always occur together 100% of the time.
This is submoronic given that evolution is based on less than 100% for it to work.

I am saying that if they were linked then there would be a dependence, either one requires the other or both require the other. Looking again at the marriage/procreation example, neither one requires the other in order to occur. Marriage can and has happened whether or not procreation happens. Procreation can and has happened whether or not marriage happens. Thus they are not linked. There is no dependence. Related? Sure. Often found together? Sure. But not linked. The same can be said of romantic attraction and sexual attraction. People can and have been sexually attracted where there is no romantic attraction. And while less common in occurrence, people can and have been romantically attracted where there is no sexual attraction. Thus they are not linked. Related? Yes. Often found together? Of course. But not linked because each can and has happened in the absence of the other. Do you understand?

yes over time this must be occur. And????????????

Then you should be able to supply evidence of the genetic changes. I am asking you to show what changed in our genetic structure that is reflected in culture. For example, give us the genetic change that brought about geek culture.

 

[James972]

Doesn't answer the question of what changed in the genetic structure that brought about the high heels first as men's fashion and then later made it women's fashion.

its too stupid!! Its like asking what genetic changes occurred last fall that made Games of Thrones popular!! Its beyond stupid!!

 

[James972]

Behaviors are not genetic in nature,.

sleeping, eating, talking, walking sexing,loving, mourning, working, seeing, hearing, touching, thinking, worshipping?? See why we say that when a conservative and liberal meet the conservative ends up running a kindergaten?

 

[James972]

if culture is a reflection of genetics, then how is it that a person from one culture and learn and pick up the culture of another? If culture is a reflection of genetics, then to acquire another culture would mean a shift in genetics without a passing on of the genes to mutate/recombine.

here are your ABC's once again. Evolution is, in effect, many experiments, or, in this case, cultures going on at the same time. Several might be successful to one degree or another at the same time depending on how they affect the interest in or ability to procreate. Got it now?

 

[James972]

Better is a subjective value.

if better leads to death or no procreation it is deadly and objective

 

[James972]

I am saying that if they were linked then there would be a dependence, .

evolution would allow for partial dependence to determine which level of dependence works best. Most fish swim with the school but a few don't so the species survives when a whale eats the school. Makes sense now?

 

[maquiscat]

its too stupid!! Its like asking what genetic changes occurred last fall that made Games of Thrones popular!! Its beyond stupid!!

How is it stupid? You made a claim that culture reflects genetics. Thus logically, a change in culture must reflect a change in genetics. Therefore you should be able to show what change in genetics results in what change in culture.

sleeping,...seeing, hearing, touching,...

These are not behaviors, but biological functions. We do all these from the moment we're born

... talking, walking sexing...working...worshipping

These are all learned behaviors. Genetics do not affect theses at all. Tell me what genes affect what religion a person ends up worshipping?

loving, mourning,...

While emotions are not exactly learned behavior, they can be changed by learning. For example, babies who are left alone and have no more than their basic physical need taken care of (a sad but common problem among Chinese orphanages) have a lack of or a distorted ability to love. But that aside, what genes affect emotions? How is it that people of different genetic general types (such as "race") all seem to have the same emotions? What genetic changes have resulted in new emotions evolving?

...eating,...

While eating in and of itself is a biological function, how we eat (table manners and such) is behavior and has to be learned.

?? See why we say that when a conservative and liberal meet the conservative ends up running a kindergaten?

And yet you are bringing the kindergarten level thinking to the discussion. You cannot even recognize the difference between biological functions, which can be genetically influenced, from behaviors, which have nothing to do with genetics.

here are your ABC's once again. Evolution is, in effect, many experiments, or, in this case, cultures going on at the same time. Several might be successful to one degree or another at the same time depending on how they affect the interest in or ability to procreate. Got it now?

You are trying to make a spelling bee out of a math exam. You seem to continue to be confusing social evolution to genetic evolution. Nature does not experiment as nature is not a sentient intelligent entity. If there is a deity, which is my belief, then you might have an argument, but no proof. Personally, I think God created evolution as the mechanism by which He allows random changes, or can use for making new ones. Additionally you still need to show how a person can change their own genetics in order to pick up a different culture if culture come from genetics. I am unaware of any human that can change their own genetic within themselves.

if better leads to death or no procreation it is deadly and objective

While a lack of procreation can indeed objectively lead to the decline or termination of the species, whether that is better for the planet or not is subjective. There are those who do feel that this world will be better off without us.

As for death, there are those who are going through excessive pain, to the point where the drugs needed to relieve the pain also puts them into a stupor where they cannot function in any normal manner. To many of these people death is better than continuing to live in such conditions.

Better and worse are subjective values. There is no getting around it. Even if I wereo to ageee that a given thing was better or worse than another given thing, it would only show that we have aligning opinions on that specific comparison. Got it now?

evolution would allow for partial dependence to determine which level of dependence works best. Most fish swim with the school but a few don't so the species survives when a whale eats the school. Makes sense now?

False equivalency. Instinct is not culture. I even acknowledged earlier on that even humans have some instincts, such as the fight or flight response. This is something common across the species, indeed most species. Culture and learning can override our fight or flight response. But we are not changing the genetics of those who accomplish such otherwise their offspring would be born without the response and there is no evidence of such. Make sense now?

So is it genetics that causes you to display the behavior of not being able to respond to a single post with a single post?

 

[James972]

Thus logically, a change in culture must reflect a change in genetics.?

in terms of evolution a culture change must be significant and affect procreation before it becomes genetic. Evolution is about reproduction. So the sudden popularity of Game of Thrones would probably not qualify. 1+ 1=2

 

[James972]

These are not behaviors, but biological functions. We do all these from the moment we're born

sleeping, eating, talking, walking sexing,loving, mourning, working, seeing, hearing, touching, thinking, worshipping are all behaviors demanded by our biology and take up virtually 100% of our time energy and thoughts. Try to give up sleeping eating and talking and see how far you get. Nowhere obviously because genetics demands that you behave as directed. Greedy queer behavior is uncivilized and culture should not permit it.

 

[maquiscat]

in terms of evolution a culture change must be significant and affect procreation before it becomes genetic. Evolution is about reproduction. So the sudden popularity of Game of Thrones would probably not qualify. 1+ 1=2

You're not just shifting the goalposts here, you are going to the other end of the field. What you just described above is not culture reflecting genetics, but genetics reflecting culture. When A reflects B then B occurs first. The above is completely opposite to what you originally claimed.

sleeping, eating, talking, walking sexing,loving, mourning, working, seeing, hearing, touching, thinking, worshipping are all behaviors demanded by our biology and take up virtually 100% of our time energy and thoughts. Try to give up sleeping eating and talking and see how far you get. Nowhere obviously because genetics demands that you behave as directed. Greedy queer behavior is uncivilized and culture should not permit it.

Looks like math is not your only problem, as you are failing reading comprehension as well. There is a difference between behavior and biological functions. Sleeping, eating, touching, breathing....all biological functions. Worshiping is not a genetic based anything. Where are the genes that demand worshipping? On top of biological functions, I also covered instincts, of which sex, and feelings are covered by. Instincts differ from biological function in that they can be overridden by learning and training. I even gave you the example of the fight or flight response. Worshiping and working are learned behaviors and have no genetics ties. If you want to claim they do, then by all means present your scientific evidence!

Still I'm impressed. You managed to only split my single post into two posts!

looking again, I do need to address this bit a little more in detail.

Greedy queer behavior is uncivilized and culture should not permit it.

If greedy queer behavior is present in a culture, then it is because of evolution according to you. So why should we be fighting evolution?

 

[James972]

If greedy queer behavior is present in a culture, then it is because of evolution according to you. So why should we be fighting evolution?

actually evolution often depends on mutations. Greedy queer behavior is a mutation that will lose out to loving, familial, heterosexual Judeo Christian behavior for obvious reasons.

 

[James972]

There is a difference between behavior and biological functions.

yes but biology dictates behavior