SWM wrote:I agree with you that increased libido causes (actually, is essentially defined as) an increased appetite for sex. I disagree with your repeated implications that this increased appetite causes sexual frustration or mental or emotional stress. There is nothing inherently unhealthy about an increased libido.
cthia wrote:
And normally SWM, I would agree with you. Certainly if contained on Earth. But altering, increasing, the libido genetically represents, IMHO, much too radical a change to not entertain the side effects that I posit. A completely new paradigm is created. It is the genetic part that invites my teeth, and I can't let it go. You seem to be considering only a natural increase in libido, not that which is affected at the genetic level. In my own head it's akin to turning humans into prolific breeders. Tigers, rats have it as part of their genetic code. You seem to be projecting normal human tendencies on an abnormal human. There is a complete paradigm shift.
swm wrote:
I guess we will just have to disagree. I don't see it as a paradigm shift. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Mesan sex slaves have a libido higher than the upper range of modern humans. Yes, it is elevated relative to the average. But libidos in humans already vary by a huge range. I expect that the sex slaves are simply at the high end, not anything unusual. So what if Mesa tried to genetically program it? That is already part of human genetics. They haven't done anything that doesn't already exist in the genome. And a large part of the Mesan program for inducing the libido is undoubtedly social and mental programming, just as it is with normal humans.
I think you are assuming too much of the Mesan geneticists. <shrug>
Thanks for your candid response, your slant on things and mostly for the intelligent exchange. How damn refreshing! Actually, I hope you are right, my concern is for the sex slaves themselves, because
if I am right, what a horrid punishment visited upon them. If you are right, whew!, I can breathe a sigh of relief.
You gave me a laugh at your "I think you are assuming too much of Mesan geneticists" line. That was
my initial thought when responses began in the thread.
Someone in an earlier post, I paraphrase, sex is 90% in the head and 10% in the gonads. But Mesa wants to change those numbers, perhaps even reverse them, IMHO. It just seems to me that playing around with the human genome trying to specifically effect changes on human sexual urges would be a very hit-n-miss proposition, because so much of human sexuality
is in the head, in the psyche, in our experiences and relationships and are shaped by humanity's many faceted
fantasies of what we indeed find sexually stimulating. Start playing around with the genes and you might end up with a human with a kink for_______. I think readers can fill in the blank here. We only have to review a few of humanity's most perverse and odd sexual kinks, and they were
not engineered. From BDSM to leather to chains to shoes to autoerotic asphyxiation to bestiality...
To borrow your phrase, I think it asking too much of Mesa's geneticists to not screw (pun intended) something up even more.
You and I may disagree. Yes! That's what debates are all about. But it is disagreement based on sound principles, facts and persuasion and
possibly the shape of one's own morals, scruples and values. It is
not disagreement born of tainted respect. The everpresent 'I disagree with you because I don't like you' aspect of it. To disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
This is why I totally enjoy your exchanges!
Obviously, I am nowhere near qualified to give this topic its just dessert. However, I'd be overjoyed to sit in on said debate of several geneticists who also happen to be Honorverse fans.
I'll save a seat for you.
Again,
thanks.