Surprised? No. But it is certainly a rather noticable paradigm shift in one of the heretofore more "unpoken" arenas of experience. But as you noted, it is indeed in keeping with attitudes expressed elsewhere.
Love, Sex & The Death of God - An essay in quotes.
- Thread starter Nile577
- Start date
Surprised? No. But it is certainly a rather noticable paradigm shift in one of the heretofore more "unpoken" arenas of experience. But as you noted, it is indeed in keeping with attitudes expressed elsewhere.
What is so wrong about two strangers acting together for mutual gratification / comfort / self esteem / whatever? Why do we have to view sex alone with such large moral implications? Plenty of other animals have sex with relative strangers simply because their instinct drives them too. This doesn't mean they hate each other, have no interest in connecting minds with others, yada yada - it means they would like to have sex. What makes getting to know someone without sex so much more valid / good / moral than sex without getting to know someone? Why should anyone care? If, as a society in general we are losing the ability to become close to people then I would suggest that is a large cause for concern - but I don't see that sex would be causing that. I tend to think that sex seems one of the few things to be bringing people together these days - the sharing of physical intimacy making the sharing of emotional intimacy come easier, in a world that generally frowns upon it.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Basically we don't want to degenerate into behaving like chimpanzees who fuck anyone all the time, including their own children. That would lead to us becoming inhuman and a lot more violent too.
All the structures of society would become unravelled if this was happening. There would be no crime of rape - no one would think anything of it. There would be couples at it where ever you would go in public. These things have been left behind in our far distant evolutionary past because we evolved different strategies which became key to our advancement. In many respects humans are regressing however.
Were those strategies really key to our advancement? Are they still the key to our advancement? I entirely agree with the necessity of taming our base instincts when it can be shown to be useful - but does repression of our sexual desires really achieve anything worthwhile? Or does it just help create an awkward, emotionally repressed society of frustrated people? I would tend to look at love and emotional openness in a similar way - even more repressed and likely to be more valuable.
The comparison to chimps is interesting... most people tend to look to the animal kingdom for examples of balance and harmony.
Would the lack of 'rape' really be such a terrible thing?
I don't necessarily argue for a particular view either way here - I'm arguing for the consideration of all angles and the reduction of basic assumptions handed down to us through the generations.
The comparison to chimps is interesting... most people tend to look to the animal kingdom for examples of balance and harmony.
Would the lack of 'rape' really be such a terrible thing?
I don't necessarily argue for a particular view either way here - I'm arguing for the consideration of all angles and the reduction of basic assumptions handed down to us through the generations.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Good idea to question every assumption.
There are various possible reasons for the development of monogamy in humans and there has been little study into the subject. I have a lot of thoughts on this. (Surprise surprise).
Monogamy exists in a very few animal species. The harem is a more common arrangement, and there is promisucuity in other species - or in the case of some spiders, the male just gets eaten by the female after mating.
Levels of promiscuity are related to race to some extent but to culture to a larger extent. For example, there was strict monogamy in ancient Germanic society, but remarkably less so amongst Vikings, and less still amongst the Celts.
The Celtic and Spartan women unashamedly would sleep with the best men in public - and the women had a huge amount of status in these societies. Their husbands did not prevent this (not that it necessarily occured to them that they wanted to). Husbands could be shared too presumably. The women were not coerced by the men. This practice was eugenic in that it contrasted with the way the Roman women behaved, sneakily having afairs with the worst kind of men, and is more eugenic than monogamy that forces the less attractive women to settle for less attractive mates. They could have one man as a husband, but get pregnant by another.
It has been estimated (some decades ago) that about 10% of British kids were not of their supposed father. Seems like a lot of women don't necessarily want to get pregnant by their husband, and maybe they are finding someone with better qualities?
Sexually transmitted diseases must influence sexual practice to some extent. I would argue that the ancient Germanics may have developed their strict rules as a reaction prompted by the fact that monogamy is the healthiest option when there are STDs around. This may have happened where they were, and not been a problem for the Vikings, Celts, and Spartans. Plus, sleeping with the best men probably is safer than the Roman women's habit of sleeping with the worst as far as STD avoidance.
Another explanation for these differences of sexual mores could be simply a trend, no more than a fashion of behaviour that caught on because there were some influential individuals behaving in that way, or advocating it. That sounds somewhat like the idea that the 1960s fashion has ushered in a more sexually permissive trend. Sounds reasonable?
Polygamy (one man, several wives) is more eugenic than monogamy, because the least fit men would tend not to get a woman. The problem with this is that there would be a lot of aggrieved men who could destabilise society. An arrangement where only one wife is allowed per man may have been aggreed in some societies, to counteract this problem.
Cultures where there was particularly much indiscriminate sex would spend much time on fucking, and less time on developing civilisation. That's another point. Plus there is better chance of having well adjusted children who survive and have quality children of their own if they have a family structure with a father and mother. Selective pressure may have resulted in this being the way most people feel drawn towards behaving - as an instinct.
This being the case, a return to extreme indiscriminate promisuity would be detrimental to the upkeep of civilisation - not just because of doing sex rather than some other activity, but also because of the family breakdown and the negative consequences to do with jealousy, lack of trust greater violence (lack of self control) and spread of disease.
I like this harem idea; hence, if anyone knows any ladies who are interested in joining Speeds harem, please pm-me. I am a intelligent, fit, incredibly handsome (hehe) celto-germanic american: 6 foot tall, 195 pounds of lean muscle.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Western women don't take too well to the idea of living in a harem. There would be a lot more conflict between the wives than for women from other cultures. One could conceivably consider the position of head wife but those below had better submit. And then one would think less of the husband for his interest in those saps, quite possibly. Wimps beget wimps after all, and why would he want to do that?
Although it isn't quite a harem to be sure, a version of this does exist in the west - the polygamist/Mormon set. Many of the wives claim this arrangement is actually very satisfactory all around. I have my doubts...without the overarching and restrictive religiosity of it all, I sincerely doubt these women would seek this out(as you noted.) Just an observation...
Norsemaiden
barbarian
One could say that the kind of people who become Mormons are odd and that their behaviour is untypical. There are bound to be some women who would agree to the Mormon lifestyle. I thought that they had stopped being the polygamy idea recently though?
I was just reading about the Shakespeare play "Measure for Measure" and he had something to say relevant to what Blowtus was asking about why it would be so bad to have, what amounts to, sexual incontinence in society.
We have to show some self-restraint for the sake of avoiding chaos.
And also: too much liberty actually causes a counter-reaction of clamping down on liberty.
The "official" Mormon position no longer supports polygamy, but various off-shoots and splinter groups practice it without reprisal, though a few big stories in the US are finally bringing attention to this glorified cult behavior hiding behind their blessed 'religion.'
It is incredible to me that they have gotten away with this nonsense under the rubric of religion even this long without a great deal of attention from authorities. Only in America...
It is incredible to me that they have gotten away with this nonsense under the rubric of religion even this long without a great deal of attention from authorities. Only in America...
Norsemaiden
barbarian
I have heard that the law was changed to make polygamy illegal for Mormons in the US, while still allowed for Muslims. Is that true?
To the best of my knowledge that is not true anywhere in the US. Polygamy is illegal period. Still, it is possible Muslims practice this outside the law itself, as the "underground" Mormons do. Isn't multiculturalism grand...?
