Anatomy of Sex
5.90
Ratings: 5.90/10 from 89
users.
As one young couple settles down to start a family, learn how biological and evolutionary forces conspire to keep the human race running.
Our bodies work in specific, subtle ways for one reason only: making more humans. Travel inside the body to see what happens to both men and women when attraction occurs and when orgasm finally ensures the possibility of replicating ourselves.
Learn why humans are one of only 3% of all mammal species that require both a male and a female for care giving.
And discover the evolutionary significance behind the fact that humans mate front to front – when all other species prefer front to back.
Evolutionary psychology is very controversial...there is a lot of evidence to support it as a theory and a lot of evidence to counter it as well. Human beings are very complex sexually and in many ways which this documentary fails to address.
Part 2 is deleted from youtube :(
We were not Apes !!
this doco lost me at "and this is how your brain processes a kiss..." meh.... next....
This documentary explains shit that sex ed in the 4th grade has already taught me. It doesn't explain on a biological level why there are curtain humans who are sexually attracted to other species and wants to mate with them.It also doesn't explain sexual disorders like being attracted to inanimate objects etc. This doc is just a poor excuse to showcase porn. >_>
Evolution is a lie..! If it were true monkeys/apes would still be evolving. "One day we stood up" LOL!
PS: Eric, as much as I have tried to better understand your points, please, contribute a little to what the main purpose of this blog was regarding such film instead of pushing your very unclear thoughts while pushing onto everyone your own believes, because basically you just do not make sense. Every point you try to make yeah you use big and theoretical points and words, but in the end you go about 50 circles within one point and end up pushing on 100 thoughts into one simple explanation and then pretend you are a super being and everyone else is ignorant to your comments why? because you make no sense? NO... because if you could actually answer one comment with a simple answer (as much as I can tell it can be hard for you without showing off your ideological thoughts of super intelligence) you might actually end up answering something..
please man, grow up, your inner thoughts of you super IQ makes no difference if you can not even put a point across.!
OK.. I really do not understand whats wrong with all of you. To tell you the truth, this is just a film of what SOME scientists have done to better understand the facts and the how and when things happen within our bodies during the act of sex. They are not involving religion, mathematics, or any other kind of thing into their results. These scientists are not here showing you how math or religion or w/e you all want to argue in here interact with sex, but how sex looks, starts, acts and ends.
What is all this about your mathematics of sex, self understanding or religious views on this film? This is again just a film explaining how these scientists view the act of sex through what science has provided AS TOOLS to better view, understand and learn from such experiments.
And everyone here using their metaphors and theories of their own views on what these film should represent, instead of what the film shows so people who know very little of what really happens within the act of sex besides what is externally viewed means and therefore better understand what happens within their bodies and the actual act..
Please, people, refrain from your ideological thoughts of your own inner IQ's of 200+ and how bout simply understanding that THIS IS A FILM THAT SHOWS PEOPLE WHAT SEX LOOKS LIKE FROM WITHIN along with A SMALL REFERENCE OF WHERE IF CAME FROM AND WHAT IT WAS MEANT FOR.
I mean please, its on your LOCAL CABLE show..
The comment's are better than the film :-)
memory is the past, the known(i know you) and yes it is you having the semantics problem and you must admit that to yourself cause it is not wrong and ofcourse that the memory or the image or the known which is the past is not the thing, but do you see that actually? which is do you see that, not from memory, or what is known, cause as we are saying, the past can never be the thing, but merely a memory a image of what is, just as the footprints in snow that fade over time :)))) and ofcourse the knowledge in a book is distinct but none the less underneath that distinction it is all memories, from things you either observe yourself or reitarete from the documented observation of someone else, which became memory, the known, and how one comes to say they know. but we are then approaching the question, is there any kind of learning, knowing which is different?
I am not sure if we are just disagreeing over semantics here eric or if there is some other disagreement. Memory is clearly a stored image of a past event. Just not the exact same thing as the event. If you disagree with this then consider this: two people observe the same single event and are asked 1 week later to recall the event to the best of their ability in as much detail as possible. will there be differences in the two descriptions of the same thing? Your own memory of an event taken 1 week, 1 year and one decade after the event. Will they be the same? Why/ why not?
Other discrepancies occur in the transition between thought and wording? These questions lead neatly into your second statement that we touched on. Memory is not knowledge . It Is the location where images and thoughts are stored but we cannot call this knowledge! Until it is expressed in words, how can you be sure that you image/thought does not contain some error in it? Some missed train of logic? Missing information perhaps? We cannot classify thoughts as knowledge until they are expressed in words.
As stated before in this post there is a transition between thought and word - much is lost, unclearly stated and these are the reasons that there is a requirement for worded knowledge as opposed to internal images or thoughts defined as knowledge.
This is exactly the purpose of philosophy - The clarification of thought.
epicurean if you accept that when something is stored in the brain it is not a thing of the past, then I really have very little to say; this conversation is taking place on that basis and you dont see that which is so obvious, if you do not see this fact that memory which is remembrance is something of the past and that remembrance is a recall in the present of something that was... then we cannot continue; and is that still what you accept with the complications aside? since I am responding to a comment which was, right?
It also goes on to say,
There is no shame in being an addict: it issimply the way some people are made. Addicts ARE responsible for their behaviour in so far as it affects other people but they are NOT responsible for being addicts i.e. for having what is probably a genetically inherited condition affecting the transmission of neuro-chemicals in the mood-centres of the brain.
Sigh... off topic yet again:))
Ashbreaksstuff
I found a copy of a short pamphlet of theirs called 15 reasons for continuing to smoke (or not) by Dr Robert Lefever in the charity shop for the bargain price of £1.25, I do so love a bargain and a cursory reading of it made a huge impression on me.
The exert I was quoting says:
On the principle that prevention is the best form of treatment, we should endeavour to identify the addictive population before young children ever get to the state of using mood altering substances and processes. Those children who are often misdiagnosed as being depressed or having ADD or Hyperactivity syndrome, or other significant behavioural problems are commonly those who have an addictive nature and who will subsequently become overt addicts. Those children can be identified on the following behavioural characteristics.
1. Coming from an addictive family
2. Being highly manipulative, more so than other children
3. Having extreme mood swings for no truly justifiable reason
4. Having a sense of personal isolation even when surrounded by friends
5. Being easily hurt and emotionally fragile
6. Becoming easily frustrated and dissatisfied.
The book then goes on to elaborate and expand on many other related ideas and solutions. That was the only reference to ADHD.
I am so glad to hear that you are not on Ritalin (aka Amphetamine/speed) and are doing well without drugs.
Congats and best wishes on the pregnancy.
@ Epicurean_Logic
I tried to find the article about ADHD on their website, but couldn't find it.
I'm not offended. I don't take any meds or drugs, though. I'm pregnant. I wish I could take something to help this constipation.
Anyway- that guy in the grocery store was weird. And wouldn't it be awkward to be entirely still while having an erection inside someone in an MRI machine? While creepy perverts watched? Idk. I don't have a weiner. Just a thought.
@ashbreaksstuff
Look into the "Promis recovery centre" Online to read a compelling account of what ADHD may be! In short and if you are interested it could be related to being an addict, dont be offended please its not something to be embarrassed or proud of its just that 10 % of the population according to the above links research have imbalances in the emotional centres if the brain, myself included and often ADHD is a misdiagnosed and really a manifestation of addictive disorders through no fault of our own in the Amygdala.
Have a look if you like... compelling read that suggest the reduction and complete cessation of all forms of addictive substances and processes.
I would be interested to see what you think of it and it rang true for me on many levels.
Regards.
Oh my… Cant believe I am getting drawn into this eric, Memory in not, I repeat, not, I repeat, not, the past. It is a sense impression stored in the mind of the past. The event occurs but once in a moment never to be returned to and even if the event is imagined the sense impression stored in the brain is a vivid recollection of the event but is not the event itself or even a perfect representation of it. It is stored account of a moment… not the same... as the event last a moment and the memory can last a lifetime, both are subject to change and interpretation!
A perception or memory cannot be called knowledge until it is expressed in words. An event/ an image in the mind/a string of words. How can they be one and the same?
It's a pain to my ADHD brain to try to read comments with no grammatical structure. Arrrggghhhh!!!! I give up.
ohhh geeez epicurean have you complicated things, knowledge is memory, all the known is memory, of the family, of the learned and so on is the makeup of memory, thought, thinking, remembering, recognizing which is the past.... memory is the past....is there any seeing which is now? perception which is now, not of memory or remembrance, forget expertize no one can know the brain better than oneself, and self knowledge is what we are lacking not expertize poor epicurean are you stuck in rut my friend; go into it, see it actually, dont just go around saying you know and provide me with answers
Not sure where to go with this eric as I gave an answer to the best of my current ability as " placing the word 'memory' in various sentences and substituting it for an equivalent word or phrase I say that memory is recollection, a mental storage of an event, a sense impression stored in the mind …"
The sexual context is to keep in line with the doco as I don’t want Vlatko criticizing us for going too far of context!
Conclusive? Not sure. That is your area of (lack of) expertize.
Regards.
or how did the answer come about?
Its much simpler just put aside the sex part :)
The question is what is memory? And we said not an analysis right? How does knowledge come about? when one says I know/ is there a difference between memory and knowledge? I put forth a question on the previous post? and the answer came about how?
By placing the word memory in various sentences and substituting it for an equivalent word or phrase I say that memory is recollection, a mental storage of an event, a sense impression stored in the mind … The sexual act is so vivid in the memory for the reason that it is one of the few activities that uses all 5 senses (so called total knowledge) all other memories are inputted partially… But what right do we have to trust our memory? can you not concede that your recollection of an event will inevitably differs from another observers recollection of the same event? Your lovers recollection of sex will differ from yours due to their different perception and paradigm! This is but one example set in context of the documentary… What right do we have to trust our memory if this is the case?
From here we can move to Descartes more general question of 'is there any knowledge which is infallible? Clearly not! For if it were infallible it would not be possible to doubt it. Is there anything which cannot possibly be doubted? Again clearly not Physics, history… The method of doubt is like a sieve that retains only absolutely certain knowledge. The memory can be doubted.
Im glad you do not see any conclusion to this, so lets not make one epicurean is that possible :)? Suppose I say to you that intelligence unlike memory or storage is not something that can be recorded on to the brain, hence one cannot learn to be intelligent as society is often trying and as parents are seeking to make their kids smart through various ways; what is memory? memory of yourself? memory of math, what does all of that consist? so you see we are asking a question which is not to analyze memory, but to find out the whole? what is memory?
A response: The inputting is not the memorization part of intelligence. To clarify, a book is read and on the first reading a certain percentage of the text can be read and absorbed by the mind. How much can be absorbed… depends on how good your ability to input is. The retain part pertains to the memory! The manipulation is not so sinister as you may think an example will hopefully clarify: input a + b= c and a = c + d therefore we can 'manipulate' this in the mind and after a little algebra we conclude that b = -d. The 3 components explained in simple terms!
I find your non-conclusive style interesting eric and it seems to somehow illuminate the question under consideration. As well as confuse in some cases! Also anyone who can bring mathematics into a conversation about sex is ok in my book.
An after thought: Mental creativity consists of smashing up the mosaic of experience and using the shards to build a new picture?