Welcome back! Today I want to build up on what we did last time and specifically look at, in more detail, the environment and its impact on the sexual creature within. Remember, I mentioned this last time although I did not elaborate because I thought it best we try look at human sexuality from a primeval perspective first. So, now that we’ve thought about “Adam,” “Eve” and “Steve,” let’s look at their environment and its impact on them.
Now then, let’s take another look at Adam and his environment – whereby environment means everything around him, including other people. Obviously, Adam’s environment is either going to stimulate him or not. When the environment does stimulate him, it’s either because
- his environment presents him with an apparent opportunity to procreate, or
- his environment invokes him to prepare for a potential opportunity to procreate.
Obviously, an apparent opportunity to procreate involves instinctually recognizing somebody of the opposite gender acting so as to entice sex, such as Eve in panel 5 of last post’s comic [see Figure 8.1]. Preparing for a potential opportunity to procreate, on the other hand, would include instinctually taking advantage of something else in the environment that is not a member of the opposite gender but can attract members of the opposite gender, for sex. In last post’s comic, for example, we saw Steve’s relatively superior physique induce an erection in Adam so that Adam may trump Steve, in seducing Eve. In this context, therefore, we realize that Adam’s erection in panel 15, is not a case of “gay desire” but in fact, a case of instinct trying to out-perform a competitor in the mating game [see Figure 8.1]. Thus, sexual stimulation is achieved when the environment presents the subject instinct with a procreative opportunity and/or a potential procreative opportunity that is signified by the presence of an apparently superior sexual competitor.
I know that for some of you readers, my conclusion to the previous paragraph may seem some what opinionated and/or unorthodox when compared to contemporary thought. If you really think about what I’m saying, however, you will realize that this conclusion is consistent with my definition of sexual arousal, proposed in Post 5, i.e. “Sexual arousal is the autonomic preparation of the sexual organs for reproduction.” More importantly, however, this conclusion demystifies “same sex attraction” as nothing more than a mere misinterpretation of instinct’s attempt to capitalize on an anticipated opportunity to procreate. Hence, such erections are better described as proactive erections and will be labelled as such, from here after.
To put it all together then, opportunistic erections can be described as those types of erections that typically result when instinct “searches” and then attempts to “seize” procreative opportunities. Proactive erections, on the other hand, can be described as those types of erections that typically result when instinct tries to “advertise” its sexual assets so as to “acquire” a better chance of reproducing. Thus, all counts of sexual arousal can be described as being either opportunistic or proactive [see Tree 8.1].
Okay, that’s just about it, for now. I just wanted to add the following for the sake of completion, mainly, competitively induced proactive erections in men are obviously redundant in this day and age because women today don’t simply have sex with men because of their “package size” (I mentioned this last time). Additionally, men today, typically don’t walk around with their packages on display – so whether they’re experiencing: opportunistic erections, proactive erections or no erection at all, nobody would be able to tell unless they [the men] have their pants off. Cultural development, therefore, has (more-or-less) lead to the obsoleteness of proactive erections in men.
That’s it for now, everyone. Thanks again for reading. Next time, I’ll be talking about proactive erections in women.