Unicorntopia

It's called being human. Some people prefer to side with part of the truth and assume that all other opinions or sides to the story carry no credibility. I say it is completely possible for a man to have his primal urges without sacrificing his ability to share an emotional bond.

We are animals. Intelligent animals but still animals. It's no surprise to me that christians believe we are above sex, they see us as the chosen masters of the world and view humans as far higher beings than all the other animals on earth. This is not true, we are more intelligent but our purpose of procreating and self-preservation of our species is just the same as any other animal.

And like it says in the video, men play the natural role of the sexual instigator and women play the role of child birthing and bearing. that is how our species works, but that doesn't mean we are not capable of emotion unless we reject our sexual nature.

Neat video. I like the ego thing, so true.

"but that doesn't mean we are not capable of emotion unless we reject our sexual nature."

I did not say we had to reject our sexual nature in order to be capable of emotion. I said it was an illusion that we had to choose between the two:

"It is difficult and maybe even impossible to find someone with ideal qualities to suit both soul and instinctual desires perfectly. This is when the illusion that we have to choose between the two is manifested."

indeed. I wholeheartedly agree with your theory that our bodies require something that our soul does not. Our mind, soul and body work together as a team, but they each want a different form of relations with other humans.

I've believed this for a while now but most people seem unwilling to consider it. Probably for the same reasons people have a problem accepting the theory that evolution did occur but was set in motion by god. people are stubborn and don't want to lose or change their viewpoint.

Awsome, I think that evolution was set in motion by God too. I don't know if you read my "What I Think" blog but it make impossible for me not to believe so.

I think this is as simple as the difference between attraction and intimacy. In the attraction phase, we're designed to be physically attracted to someone because we don't yet know them on any other level. If human beings didn't begin with an instinct for physical attraction, we'd never move past it into intimacy. Physical attractors come through the senses and pheromones, while the body is producing more testosterone - the hormone for sexual desire in both men and women.

However, once intimacy is established the former state is abandoned in favor of pair bonding hormones called Oxytocin which fills the receptors for pheromone and testosterone responses and blocks them. When two people are intimate, both of them produce less testosterone, which in turn produces less pheromones.

They actually did a study proving that both men and women have a drastic drop in testosterone levels when they are in love. This is why men go from being tough guys to holding a woman's purse when shopping. (And gives some validity to the idea that a woman can turn a bad boy into a good guy...)

In other words, it's a natural human reaction to be lusty when single, then intimate when not. This is how the species was designed.

(And yes, Evolution had to be created by God. If God is benevolent and created both life and the dynamic environment in which he placed life, why wouldn't he make life capable of adapting to that environment? It's silly to assume otherwise.)

Awesome Nobleheart! That was just the comment I was hoping for. Thank you.

Wow Nobleheart. Just wow. Totally agree!!!!!!

Nice blog post . . . . reciprocate.. reciprocation.