Relearning sexual behavior - opinions?

[Tomato_Can]

Hey I'm a new poster here, and not at all experienced in the field of psychology.

For the past while, I've been pretty consumed on personal level with relationships and how their nature is based around sexuality.
I've been in the fortunate position to be able to experience this first hand, as oppose to just speculating about it, and I've basically come up with a pretty simplistic approach that I now incorporate in my own personal life.

During this time however, I - again, fortunately - had the opportunity to be exposed to quite a diverse set of races and cultures, and from my own perspective, in light of the information that I found to be effective for myself, it seemed apparent to me that a large part of culture is defined as regards their attitude towards sexuality; which one would assume is imbued through parental, cultural and social influences, during their nurturing years.

Basically, I devised the following consciously, in a deduction process almost, and implemented it consciously, through a process, from what I understand, is known as sub-conscious conditioning.
Basically relearning by continuous conscious implementation, "habits" and approaches acquired during formative years.

That's my amateur assessment of the process I've done.

Below, I just outline the mentality that seems to be effective for myself, and the logic through which I made them determinations.

Basically I'm looking for any kind of feedback from those of you with experience in the psychological field, or any thoughts you have on the matter would be appreciated.

***

Firstly, I'd like to pre-phase by saying that this mentality pertains pretty much directly to sexuality, and I personally speculate (as I don't have referable sources) that to a large degree, irrespective of gender, human interaction depends hugely on sexual perception.

Although, as oppose to my previous belief that it was linear - a guy is an "alpha" or a guy is a "beta - it's actually multifaceted, and must encapsulate an approach from a variety of angles.

So firstly, I'll outline my hypothesized mentality, and then explain my logic behind it.


If we can imagine a sphere representing said mentality.
Inside the sphere, is contained the intention of the mentality, which an observant would feel, or perceive instinctively, whilst the outside or the surface of the sphere, is what an observant would perceive consciously, or on a human level.

So if we examine the analogy in a very straight forward manner; an observant see's a sphere, and they can feel an energy radiating from within it, but on the surface, it just looks like any random passing sphere...

Okay, well, that's my poor attempt to figuratively portray this hypothesis.


So firstly, to refer to the "inside" of the sphere.

This pertains to the phenomenon that I referred to earlier.
As regards the nature of sex (so you can see why it's the core of the issue ).
If we're familiar to any degree with American sitcoms, we'll probably be familiar with the expression, "animal sex".
It's generally referenced in positive light.

Jennifer Anniston off the cast of "Friends": "The guy was total bastard, but he made up for it in the bedroom. It was totally animal sex".

In the animal kingdom, consensual sex is basically unheard of (based on the information I've perceived).
Perhaps there are exceptions to this, I don't know, but by en-large, it's effectively the male taking control, and forcing "carnal knowledge", if you will, upon the female.

Rape, effectively.

Examining certain species that exemplify this: Dolphins.
Male Dolphins can spend a lifetime, sometimes searching in packs, for a female, who they will isolate, and "rape" over and over - sometimes, as a gang.

This is one example among many.
Not only among mammals, but insects, reptiles etc.

This would lead me to hypothesize, that fundamental nature, the fundamental approach toward sex that occurs on an animal level, i.e. "animal sex", is actually rape.

That's point 1.



Point 2.
The perception of behavior.

That which is most aesthetically appeasing.
That which alludes to the act itself.
That which imbues and inspires thoughts of coitus, and projects an image of self affirmation.

To be, sexy.

Whether we are or not, is a different story.
But, contained within this hypothesis, this is the nature or direction our behavior would go.

Of course being "sexy" would encapsulate a number of other facets - being composed, collected, cool etc.
I guess these in combination with the bodily allusion to sex, is what produces or defines the perception of "sexy"...? (sort or irrelevant speculation )


Point 1 and point 2 effectively relate to what are encapsulated "inside" the sphere, as regards the analogy.


Point 3, as regards the sphere surface.
This is the human perception. The conscious perception.

Certainly as regards point 1, referred to the nature of the coitus - rape - it is certainly dehumanizing. Which is it's intent (animal sex).
As regards the perception of ones behavior, if they were to allude to this, it would be a very repelling perception.

As regards testosterone, it's sometimes referred to as the hormone that imbues the will to "fight and.... fornicate", shall we say.

That is to say, the strong conscious perception of sexuality can often be perceived plainly as aggression.
I think on a day to day level, the stereotypical "alpha male" embodies this.
The imposing nature of that aggression, even if that aggression is not aimed directly at one individual - can often be perceived as uncivilized.

So the sphere surface, should be - DECEPTION.

Deception as regards sexual intent.

That intent being - there is no intent.
There is no conscious perception of any sexual desire on the part of an observer, and therefore, no aggression.
On a conscious level, the male is entirely human, not at all animal like.

This lends itself to "human" interaction.

The whole "alpha/beta" school of thought goes such that the male "takes control".
He doesn't make conversation, he doesn't ask questions, he just takes.
Again, behavior which is ultimately very dehumanizing.

I refer again to sexual perception defining to a large degree human interaction: this is likely the type of behavior that would, if adopted by society in general, would lead to general uproar.
One can only imagine...

The ultimate affect of the sphere surface, the deception, on ones overall behavior, is to "humanize" it, our actions, our thoughts become lucid and composed, not imposing and wild, like that of an animal.
Yet the animal nature and energy is ever present, "within" the sphere.

Sexuality does not suffer, yet our actions and behavior gravitate toward humanity.

Note: This "deception" can also serve to eliminate egotism, as unfortunately occurs on the part of some females, as it eliminates their "leverage", in a sense, that our unwitting conveyance of sexual desire can often give them.

Just an added plus I guess


As far as the affect of this mentality, I've always been of the opinion that when a behavior trait or characteristic is to manifest, as regards where to initiate it?
What comes first, the chicken or the egg?

IMO - the thought comes first. The mentality comes first.

For the overall manifestation of a mentality and it's embodiments, with such positive outcomes (in theory, being on a level playing field with women as regards partner selection), it would take lifestyle concessions and accordance's of various natures (again, speculating), perhaps varying according to each specific individual?

But suffice to say that adopting a mentality alone I found to be a crucial beginning, but ultimately a guide to behavior and self improvement, not an entire manifestation of it.

***

Just as post script note - I'm gonna be honest.
I basically en-devoured in this initially, to assist myself with female relationships, which were something which I had encountered quite a degree of difficulty with in the past.
Again, those problems pertaining mainly to sexuality.

But for me, it was part of a process of self improvement as regards relationships with females in general.

To assist me, I took what for me seemed like a good route - get in shape.

I found my progression in weight lifting was limited by my progression with the above mentality, but - like magic - once the pieces all fell together and the aforementioned became complete, my progress took off without limitation.
Whether that's a facet of nature or what, I'm not sure - motivation perhaps?
But something interesting I guess

[sakoz]

Tomato_Can; I like your analogy of "being inside or outside" a sphere. I use a 'box' instead of sphere. When we think a thought, we can be 'inside' or 'outside' of them.
When oriented 'inside' the thought, functions like a perception; where viewed from 'outside' it is seen for what it is, a thought. (See my post 'Compulsion or Calling).
The rest of your script  "beats the hell out of me".

[Tomato_Can]

Tomato_Can; I like your analogy of "being inside or outside" a sphere. I use a 'box' instead of sphere. When we think a thought, we can be 'inside' or 'outside' of them.
When oriented 'inside' the thought, functions like a perception; where viewed from 'outside' it is seen for what it is, a thought. (See my post 'Compulsion or Calling).
The rest of your script  "beats the hell out of me".

Really? lol

Well, I read your post on the perceptions, and your idea as regards thoughts and perceptions - my interpretation as regards my own situation:

Say a simple analogy.

Someone you don't like is due to stop by your house.
When they get there, although you don't like them, and they know you don't like them, and the feeling of dislike is apparent through the "vibe", I guess, you greet them warmly, invite them in, drink tea etc, and generally everything is cool.
You see them to the door, and bid them farewell.
Beneath this behavior, is the persistent feeling of dislike, but the surface perception causes our behavior between the two individuals, to manifest in such a way as is reasonably positive.

In other words, in my view, it doesn't matter the feeling underneath.

Even if the guest knew you didn't like them, but you behave in a positive fashion, by nature, that lends itself to a positive situation.
So we're reacting on perceptions.

Some people give the guy who "speaks his mind" allot of credit, cause he's being honest, right?

What if his behavior is unruly and upsetting?
There's not much to be said for that.

In other words, IMO, despite the word having negative connotations, there's actually allot to be said for DECEPTION.
My interpretation of that word being: providing a perception which ultimately leads to, by nature, to a reasonably positive situation, whether it's based on actual feelings or not.

Does that pertain to your point as regards "compulsion and calling", reacting to thoughts and/or perceptions?

You say, "he pulled the trigger cause he thought there was no bullets in the gun".
So by nature, he was reacting to his perception - what you refer to as his "thought", at that time.
Our thoughts being a product of our perception.

BY NATURE, perhaps, that's the only way it can go.
As human animals, we can only work with what we see, or what we're provided on the surface.
This is what we react to consciously.
Perhaps anything less is to defy nature?


What I'm saying is, as regards sexual gratification; you know that cliche, women want a "beast" of a man etc etc.
I think that pertains mainly to, on an "animalistic level", they want a man that will fulfill their "animalistic" desires - which pertain to rape.

Rape, would be akin to the feeling of not liking the guest that's calling to the house.
Deception - which would convey no actual sexual desire, and therefore, no aggression - lending itself to entirely "humane" behavior, the surface behavior, the one that, by nature, is the only thing that really matters as regards our conscious reactions.
Perhaps the guest can still feel the dislike, but pertaining again to your point as regards the thought of their being no bullets in the gun - we only react to what we see, or perceive, as that would dictate how, by nature, our thoughts manifest.

This creates a situation where sexuality is not compromised, in favor of being the "nice guy".
And I guess we're familiar with the cliche's that, typically, go along with being the "nice guy"...


How the "sub-mentality" of rape becomes effective? i.e. what's "inside" the sphere.
Perhaps, as humans we react in two ways.
What we perceive, and what we feel.

To feel, it must be a physical thing, right?

I think this is evident to two areas.

Fighting, and coitus. (to F and F, to use the more generic expression).

When one man doesn't like another man, he tends to go beyond the boundary of perception, and push into an area which may lead to physical confrontation.
At this point, he's beginning to feel.
It goes beyond perception.

I think this is done almost constantly with men; we're constantly testing each other in this sense.

With a man and woman, as regards sexuality, we go beyond the standard day-to-day behavior, and push the boundaries; pushing into that persons space, in a sense.
Now, it's generally consensual - as in accepted by the party whose space is being "invaded", in a sense - but the point being, we're crossing the realms of what we perceive, into what we feel.

And despite the surface perception of humanity and kindness and "nice guy" etc etc; from a gratification point of view in terms of sexuality, where the males adopts an attitude of "rape", it's a feeling that's far more appealing to females.
My point of view there pertains to that which I outlined in the OP, as regards the "animal" nature of coitus.

I hope all that makes some sense... lol

[Tomato_Can]

Also, bro. I just read your other thread, as regards bullying.

Again, I'm an amateur. I have no academic experience.

But during my deduction of what I described above, I have been exposed to what you refer to as "bullying".

As regards what I referred to as one "invading" another's space, and also our perceptions (whether true or false, stemming from actual feeling or deception),  both seem to be crucial as regards the degree to which, as you say, allow the bully's actions and words to take affect.

In my situation, I was working with what seemed to me to pertain strictly to sexuality; so that would have been for male-female relationships.
But the overlap as regards male to male relationships, I guess that maybe it's a product of sexuality stemming from the same area as aggression.

To give you a very clear example.

This "bully", at a time when I was not adopting a sexually aggressive "sub-mentality", I found his actions to be far more effective in terms of how he could impose on me.
When I augmented that situation, and adopted that sexual aggressive state of mind, when he went to impose himself, I could feel a definite rising aggression, which, due to the fact that he was "imposed" on me, in a sense - he was within the "feeling" zone - he also sensed, and maintained his distance as a result.

I believe his motive for his bullying actions, is egotism.
The desire to give himself a sense of empowerment.
The strong preys on the weak (or the perceived weak). No more complex than that.

Without going into hyperbolic detail, suffice to say that I had problems with this bully in various area's, but my adoption of the complete mentality outlined in the OP, negated his "offense", entirely.

It was all as a product of feelings and perceptions, I believe.

[sakoz]

Tomato_Can; ( I can't 'box' quotes from others, not savy with comps so I write out long way.)
"You say, ' Hepulled the trigger cause he thought there were no bullets in the gun." So by nature he was reacting to his perception (exactly, but in this case HE MADE that perception) What you refer to as his thought at the time. Our thoughts being product of our perceptions."
I'm pointing out that SOME PERCEPTIONS ARE A PRODUCT OF THOUGHT. Easily missed, as you did. (Reverse of consensus belief.)
You say "we can only work with what we see or what we're provided with. YES to "only work with what we see". But SOME of what we see , we ourselve provided by BELIEVING some of our thoughts as 'real'.
I only reply to this aspect of your reply, hope it's ok? It's my field of interest.

[SWM]

just curious as to how you would know whether a dolphin (or some insect or other animal) was being raped or was giving consent.

[Tomato_Can]

I only reply to this aspect of your reply, hope it's ok? It's my field of interest.

That's cool. It's better you clarified that.

To be honest, I'm quite aware much of my wall of text is pretty much incomprehensible.

Thing is, it's sort of an "attitude" I guess I adopted, and it's made such a huge difference to me, with relationships, with people in general, most importantly with sex.

There's always been this sort of pecking order in society, that - well, I guess some generations ago, that women were "suppressed", I guess.
And then, my understanding is, the feminist revolution occurred, and women gained equal status - which was obviously hugely positive step in terms of society and humanity.
It hasn't happened in some countries yet - Islamic based, for example - but hopefully that equal status isn't too far off.

But if we look today at the US divorce rates, they're over 50%.

Just for me personally, I've sort of redefined my attitude toward sexuality, and as a result, toward relationships in general; most definitely in a more positive manner.

I guess posting here I was trying to get perspective on that, as regards that situation.

But I appreciate any replies.

[Tomato_Can]

just curious as to how you would know whether a dolphin (or some insect or other animal) was being raped or was giving consent.

Wikipedia bro.

Partly also, as regards animal sex, I thought it was basically common knowledge.

Ducks for example; the male is commonly known to attain sex through strength and effective submission.
Dogs.
Hell, the pigeons outside my front door are doing it right now - and it doesn't look all that consensual to me.

To be honest, reading this material as regards "rape" within the animal kingdom being the natural form of coitus, was not the means that I actually arrived at the conclusion that it's the most gratifying approach toward sex from a female perspective, but I figured it's as good and simplistic an explanation as any.

But I'm on the brink of rambling with another wall of text again, so I'll cut myself short here.