|
|
| Page 1 of 4 |
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
 Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 17:54 Post subject: The moronic norms surrounding sex |
|
 |
"Fucking is legal, selling is legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?" /G. Carlin
Something that really irks me is all the norms surrounding sex. Sexuality as a whole is used as a marketing ploy to get attention. Sexuality as a whole is innately human. Yet sexuality is one of the most controversial and contractictory activities that humans can do, and it seems that it keeps getting more and more complicated for every year that something new happens.
Well, let's go back to the beginning of human fucking, back then it basically wham bam, thank you ma'm. Reproduction of the species, no values really whatsoever. Except the basic "I want to fuck the alpha male/female".
Fast-forward through a lot of boring history and yammering, enter religion and a bit later Christianity, and a bit later: The dark ages. This was the age of self-mutilation, pugilism, and anti-progress and it to this very date influences the actions, politics, and lifestyles of most of the western civilization.
The whole big taboo around the most natural thing since eating, sleeping, taking a pee and sensing the smell of a fresh apple was really emphasized here. ANYTHING physically or mentally pleasurable was pretty much viewed as "sin". Take your eating, fucking, wanting, anything; it became culpable and if you had any fun, you should basically take rose thorn and beat your body until you either bled unconscious or experienced so much pain that you'd fall unconscious anyways.
So, this is also the time where a lot of the "monogamy"-norms were harshly institutionalized, basically one woman, one man. If anything else, we'll fuck you up. So, the fact that a lot of people go to therapy because "they wanted to fuck someone else", family therapy, etc. and so on ... the entire concept of it was created by the norm that only two people can ever love each other and fuck each other. Because everything else is "wrong".
It also created social norms around what sex does what when it comes to the relationship. The man is supposed to be physically strong (even though he might be an all thumbs nerd) and bring the cash, and court the woman, but ultimately of course the woman will betray him like Eve. Because that norm is so spoonfed to society there are hundreds of thousands of individuals who think that their girlfriend is cheating on them, all because of Apple.
Then it comes to sexual acts, missionary style, homosexuality, polyamorous relationships, "infidelity", porn, having sex for pleasure, selling sex, buying sex, being a man and buying a sex toy, etc. etc. etc. et-fucking ceteral. Nearly all the norms surrounding these things are Christian ideas made norms and trapping non-christians because of duhhh... lack of logical thinking and general dumbness.
I think it's fucking retarded that a "relationship" is defined as broken when either party wants to fuck someone else. What I think is broken is when either or both members of said relationship lies to each other about what they really feel or want. Constantly this whole notion of either member of a mono-relationship feeling sexual attraction toward someone else, and the whole "shame"-shit connected to it, and then by extension the lies: "No, I wasn't looking at his/her ass, I am always thinking of you when I'm masturbating, sure...". All that lying because of the creation of "sin". What a load of crock that shit is.
Take your norms and shove them the fuck back to your stereotypically anal religious home and never come back. kthxbai
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 18:34 Post subject: |
|
|
I can only agree with you.
Sure this is 'the norm', but I have a feeling that with us advancing as a society, we are slowly abandoning the 'old ways'.
Atheism is in the rise, and with it comes the advancement of logical and critical thinking.
Ppl are slowly starting to see that the 'sinful' ways are pure bs.
The only problem is that that change is slow, and you'll still see these bs Christian norms being at large by the end of your life, but there will be more freedoms, at least I hope 
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 18:57 Post subject: |
|
|
Get money. Fuck bitches.
</wisdom>
Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 19:28 Post subject: Re: The moronic norms surrounding sex |
|
|
| fisk wrote: |
It also created social norms around what sex does what when it comes to the relationship. The man is supposed to be physically strong (even though he might be an all thumbs nerd) and bring the cash, and court the woman, but ultimately of course the woman will betray him like Eve. Because that norm is so spoonfed to society there are hundreds of thousands of individuals who think that their girlfriend is cheating on them, all because of Apple.
|
The Hero Myth has been found in almost every culture on planet earth.
And the Eve/Apple and men thinking their women are cheating on them... Is there a correlation? I think this happens in cultures who have nothing to do with Christianity.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sausje
Banned
Posts: 17716
Location: Limboland, Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Feb 2013 19:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| inz wrote: | | fisk wrote: | "Fucking is legal, selling is legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?" /G. Carlin
|
But it is...?  |
indeed 
What are you talking about? 
Proud member of Frustrated Association of International Losers Failing Against the Gifted and Superior (F.A.I.L.F.A.G.S)
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aevis
Posts: 522
Location: Absurdia
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 07:45 Post subject: |
|
|
So, i'm all for logical thinking, but are you saying that you'd allow your gf to get with another dude if that's what she wanted at the time ? (obviously while still in a relationship with you)
Don't get me wrong, i agree with absolutely everything you've said, and maybe it's just me being indoctrinated or something, but i don't think i'd be able to handle that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 07:53 Post subject: |
|
|
so your lady friend found out of your exploration of other lady friends and she got upset... boo hoo... 
I agree. We can't change it. Just find someone who believes in what you believe and be done with it.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24642
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 08:21 Post subject: |
|
|
This is a cultural trait that has been with humanity for several millennia in various forms, often centered through a kind of misogyny, women being lower worth, being objects to trade, sell or own (and it's still going on in large parts of the world). It's an example of mass-indoctrination starting from birth, strengthened in school and then perpetually transferred from person to person, from society to society etc...
It's mass-psychology and something that is very difficult to change those prejudices (on both sides). When someone tries they're either whores, feminists, genus-cunts or whatever... Guys that sleep around are cool, women that sleep around are whores. Classic thinking among most people, male or female alike.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 11:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| aevis wrote: | | So, i'm all for logical thinking, but are you saying that you'd allow your gf to get with another dude if that's what she wanted at the time ? (obviously while still in a relationship with you) |
+1
Fidelity is not about norms or pressure (if that is teh case you'd better end the relationship). If you feel forced into a monogamous relationship, don't marry or get a girlfriend who is open to your ideas (fucking around).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:15 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Yes, we all want to fuck pretty women. I don't think there's a norm that says it's wrong to want to fuck pretty women. I'm pretty sure any normal person would say such a desire is natural and A-OK.
However, I place a much higher value on love and trust than I place on the physical act of fucking.
So, while I'd love to fuck around when in a relationship - IF I forgot about the consequences - I'd never actually act on it. Simply because I don't like hurting the people I love, and I don't want to throw away my relationship because I'm subject to natural physical responses.
My brain is helping me out in that, so if you don't have one - I understand if it's hard to resist fucking around.
If you're simply saying that wanting to fuck pretty women is natural and ok - then I completely agree.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morphineus
VIP Member
Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:16 Post subject: |
|
|
Mmm I call guys sleeping around sluts, no discrimination here!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 14:08 Post subject: |
|
|
I find it funny that people here, because of norms assume that I want to "fuck around" or got discovered for doing so. Those assumptions stem from your own ideas and desires, my friends. If you have them, if you think that's what you want, why are you assigning blame to them?
Personally I am too much of a ... selective individual when it comes to socialization, so finding one woman that I can connect with intimately was enough of a stroke of improbability for me. We've been together for roughly 13 years - we're extremely honest with each other though, which probably is why it has worked for so long.
A big chunk of the influence of this comes from religion, whether you want it or not. The fact that it ALSO could be influenced from other factors doesn't make it any better in my opinion. I am very liberal when it comes to things such as culture, sexuality, authority and information - and to me it is only weird how people cling to structures and norms to define, indeed what is normal. But I am enough of an "outside thinker" to realize that some of my views and perceptions, and indeed emotions surrounding "two people in one relationship" are constructed trough tradition and a lot of influence of that has historically been the church and (secondmost) the state.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 14:32 Post subject: |
|
|
How would you combat things like jealousy, adultery, bastard offspring, uncertainty of parentage in a society without these norms?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 14:45 Post subject: |
|
|
| fisk wrote: | I find it funny that people here, because of norms assume that I want to "fuck around" or got discovered for doing so. Those assumptions stem from your own ideas and desires, my friends. If you have them, if you think that's what you want, why are you assigning blame to them?
Personally I am too much of a ... selective individual when it comes to socialization, so finding one woman that I can connect with intimately was enough of a stroke of improbability for me. We've been together for roughly 13 years - we're extremely honest with each other though, which probably is why it has worked for so long.
A big chunk of the influence of this comes from religion, whether you want it or not. The fact that it ALSO could be influenced from other factors doesn't make it any better in my opinion. I am very liberal when it comes to things such as culture, sexuality, authority and information - and to me it is only weird how people cling to structures and norms to define, indeed what is normal. But I am enough of an "outside thinker" to realize that some of my views and perceptions, and indeed emotions surrounding "two people in one relationship" are constructed trough tradition and a lot of influence of that has historically been the church and (secondmost) the state. |
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say, really.
Are you saying that because fidelity is a "norm" we strive for - caused by "religion" - it's a bad thing?
Because I don't follow.
Are you seriously suggesting that because we get "urges" from nature, that's a clear sign of how we should behave or what? Like the urge to eat everything that looks tasty or the urge to hit people who annoy us?
Are you saying that nature - which is responsble for SO much death through natural disasters and whatever - is something we should use as our compass in life?
Because I don't follow.
Personally, I think fidelity is a key ingredient in any sound relationship. While I would never condemn people who agree to "fuck around" even when in a relationship - I'm extremely sceptical in terms of how secure that relationship really is. I'm not saying it's not possible to have a great and loving relationship under those conditions - I just don't think it's very likely to last.
I think fidelity is a natural part of the social contract that we call a loving relationship. I don't think you can maintain emotional security and trust in a realistic way without it.
However, if people really think they can manage - then I wouldn't stand in their way. They need to fuck more people? Go ahead - and be proud of your natural ways.
I guess sex just isn't important enough for me to risk or experiment with a relationship.
I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where my partner wasn't satisfied with what I could provide. Certainly, I've never felt that I needed more than my partner to be happy in a relationship.
Easy to please? I don't think that fits my profile.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 15:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: |
Atheism is in the rise, and with it comes the advancement of logical and critical thinking.
Ppl are slowly starting to see that the 'sinful' ways are pure bs.
The only problem is that that change is slow, and you'll still see these bs Christian norms being at large by the end of your life, but there will be more freedoms, at least I hope |
Maybe in your country. Around here, after the fall of communism the orthodox church gained unprecedented influence and popularity. We have over 9000 churches, and more are being built, and only 3000 schools, and far fewer medical facilities. Atheists are frowned upon, at work and inside their family. When i didn't want to baptise my kid in orthodoxy, the whole family went crazy. To my shame, i accepted.
Hell, one of my colleagues - and he's a 35 yo engineer, thus a young, educated man - went at the priest with his girlfriend to obtain a "pass", in order to bang her without being married. I couldn't believed my fuckin' ears - and he was proud of it. And don't remind me of those calling each year the priest to bless their car, house, children, etc.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 15:41 Post subject: |
|
|
lol, which country is that?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 15:42 Post subject: |
|
|
| BloodySpy wrote: | | dingo_d wrote: |
Atheism is in the rise, and with it comes the advancement of logical and critical thinking.
Ppl are slowly starting to see that the 'sinful' ways are pure bs.
The only problem is that that change is slow, and you'll still see these bs Christian norms being at large by the end of your life, but there will be more freedoms, at least I hope |
Maybe in your country. Around here, after the fall of communism the orthodox church gained unprecedented influence and popularity. We have over 9000 churches, and more are being built, and only 3000 schools, and far fewer medical facilities. Atheists are frowned upon, at work and inside their family. When i didn't want to baptise my kid in orthodoxy, the whole family went crazy. To my shame, i accepted.
Hell, one of my colleagues - and he's a 35 yo engineer, thus a young, educated man - went at the priest with his girlfriend to obtain a "pass", in order to bang her without being married. I couldn't believed my fuckin' ears - and he was proud of it. And don't remind me of those calling each year the priest to bless their car, house, children, etc. |
Well, in my country the situation isn't bright, but I can see a clear progress in the past 10 years. Ppl are starting to doubt the church, as they should, because they are spewing nonsensical bullshit all the time.
The problem is that young ppl are going out, and old ppl are staying and they still have the same traditional way of thinking, imposed by the church: fear the wrath of god! He will smite you if you don't give money to the church...
But the younger ppl are seeing through the bullshit. That's why the church is going mad over education in our country. They know that the more educated the ppl, the less money there is for them...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 16:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: | | fisk wrote: | I find it funny that people here, because of norms assume that I want to "fuck around" or got discovered for doing so. Those assumptions stem from your own ideas and desires, my friends. If you have them, if you think that's what you want, why are you assigning blame to them?
Personally I am too much of a ... selective individual when it comes to socialization, so finding one woman that I can connect with intimately was enough of a stroke of improbability for me. We've been together for roughly 13 years - we're extremely honest with each other though, which probably is why it has worked for so long.
A big chunk of the influence of this comes from religion, whether you want it or not. The fact that it ALSO could be influenced from other factors doesn't make it any better in my opinion. I am very liberal when it comes to things such as culture, sexuality, authority and information - and to me it is only weird how people cling to structures and norms to define, indeed what is normal. But I am enough of an "outside thinker" to realize that some of my views and perceptions, and indeed emotions surrounding "two people in one relationship" are constructed trough tradition and a lot of influence of that has historically been the church and (secondmost) the state. |
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say, really.
Are you saying that because fidelity is a "norm" we strive for - caused by "religion" - it's a bad thing?
Because I don't follow.
Are you seriously suggesting that because we get "urges" from nature, that's a clear sign of how we should behave or what? Like the urge to eat everything that looks tasty or the urge to hit people who annoy us?
Are you saying that nature - which is responsble for SO much death through natural disasters and whatever - is something we should use as our compass in life?
Because I don't follow.
Personally, I think fidelity is a key ingredient in any sound relationship. While I would never condemn people who agree to "fuck around" even when in a relationship - I'm extremely sceptical in terms of how secure that relationship really is. I'm not saying it's not possible to have a great and loving relationship under those conditions - I just don't think it's very likely to last.
I think fidelity is a natural part of the social contract that we call a loving relationship. I don't think you can maintain emotional security and trust in a realistic way without it.
However, if people really think they can manage - then I wouldn't stand in their way. They need to fuck more people? Go ahead - and be proud of your natural ways.
I guess sex just isn't important enough for me to risk or experiment with a relationship.
I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where my partner wasn't satisfied with what I could provide. Certainly, I've never felt that I needed more than my partner to be happy in a relationship.
Easy to please? I don't think that fits my profile. |
Wow, if shit is this complicated for you, I can understand why me challenging it gets you confused.
Here's my scenario concerning sex and relationships:
1. You have freedom to do what you want together or with others.
2. ...
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 17:53 Post subject: |
|
|
But I don't like AnAL! 
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 18:48 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 19:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| fisk wrote: | | WaldoJ wrote: | | But I don't like AnAL! |
It only hurts in the beginning
... then it feels like someone stuck a glowing poker inside you |
Actually it doesn't... The beginning is hurtful at first, sure, but afterwards it's easier. Still I cannot say I find it super uber enjoyable...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 19:50 Post subject: |
|
|
| fisk wrote: | | Casus wrote: | | fisk wrote: | I find it funny that people here, because of norms assume that I want to "fuck around" or got discovered for doing so. Those assumptions stem from your own ideas and desires, my friends. If you have them, if you think that's what you want, why are you assigning blame to them?
Personally I am too much of a ... selective individual when it comes to socialization, so finding one woman that I can connect with intimately was enough of a stroke of improbability for me. We've been together for roughly 13 years - we're extremely honest with each other though, which probably is why it has worked for so long.
A big chunk of the influence of this comes from religion, whether you want it or not. The fact that it ALSO could be influenced from other factors doesn't make it any better in my opinion. I am very liberal when it comes to things such as culture, sexuality, authority and information - and to me it is only weird how people cling to structures and norms to define, indeed what is normal. But I am enough of an "outside thinker" to realize that some of my views and perceptions, and indeed emotions surrounding "two people in one relationship" are constructed trough tradition and a lot of influence of that has historically been the church and (secondmost) the state. |
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say, really.
Are you saying that because fidelity is a "norm" we strive for - caused by "religion" - it's a bad thing?
Because I don't follow.
Are you seriously suggesting that because we get "urges" from nature, that's a clear sign of how we should behave or what? Like the urge to eat everything that looks tasty or the urge to hit people who annoy us?
Are you saying that nature - which is responsble for SO much death through natural disasters and whatever - is something we should use as our compass in life?
Because I don't follow.
Personally, I think fidelity is a key ingredient in any sound relationship. While I would never condemn people who agree to "fuck around" even when in a relationship - I'm extremely sceptical in terms of how secure that relationship really is. I'm not saying it's not possible to have a great and loving relationship under those conditions - I just don't think it's very likely to last.
I think fidelity is a natural part of the social contract that we call a loving relationship. I don't think you can maintain emotional security and trust in a realistic way without it.
However, if people really think they can manage - then I wouldn't stand in their way. They need to fuck more people? Go ahead - and be proud of your natural ways.
I guess sex just isn't important enough for me to risk or experiment with a relationship.
I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where my partner wasn't satisfied with what I could provide. Certainly, I've never felt that I needed more than my partner to be happy in a relationship.
Easy to please? I don't think that fits my profile. |
Wow, if shit is this complicated for you, I can understand why me challenging it gets you confused.
Here's my scenario concerning sex and relationships:
1. You have freedom to do what you want together or with others.
2. ... |
You deserve a Nobel prize for that level of insight 
Thanks for helping us out on that!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 20:18 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 21:43 Post subject: |
|
|
Your view of history regarding this topic is simplistic at best, you are straight out wrong. There is ample literature on many subjects regarding both how the dark ages were not so dark and sexualism throughout the ages as well.
My main point though the family as the central building block was conceptualized much later than when it actually evolved. Sexual behavior followed the former and both were followed by the latter.
There are researches by probablt the thousands by now, why the family works. Why children who were raised in well functioning marriages grew up to be more educated, more stable ... etc. Sexual fidelity and the need for it was a consequence of emotional bonds.
Vast majority of people will feel jealous for their partner if something is off, males get to be more jealous and more dominant because of evolutionary reasons (and I'm talking many thousands of years ago). You see, if a female cheated, there was no telling if the offspring the "father" was caring for, putting energy and resources into was really their biological child. There is no such conflict for women: the children are hers for sure.
I don't want to sound arrogant, but you really have to read up on a lot of topics in order to formulate an opinion about this, and frankly, what you're doing is just anti-establishment, without realizing why these are the norms to begin with. You make it sound like it was the evil of the church and the darkness of the dark ages, but you couldn't be more wrong about the origins of monogamy.
Sorry if this response was rash, I just had this discussion with someone today
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 23:48 Post subject: |
|
|
I try to shove social norms and expectations out the window when it comes to sex and relationships. I try to focus on what I really want and why. In the past alot of the shit that hurt came down to my ego and today I don't take things quite so personally.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 00:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| pistolshrimp wrote: | | I try to shove social norms and expectations out the window when it comes to sex and relationships. I try to focus on what I really want and why. In the past alot of the shit that hurt came down to my ego and today I don't take things quite so personally. |
And that's part of the reason why I respect you.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24642
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 02:19 Post subject: |
|
|
| Radicalus wrote: | Your view of history regarding this topic is simplistic at best, you are straight out wrong. There is ample literature on many subjects regarding both how the dark ages were not so dark and sexualism throughout the ages as well.
My main point though the family as the central building block was conceptualized much later than when it actually evolved. Sexual behavior followed the former and both were followed by the latter.
There are researches by probablt the thousands by now, why the family works. Why children who were raised in well functioning marriages grew up to be more educated, more stable ... etc. Sexual fidelity and the need for it was a consequence of emotional bonds.
Vast majority of people will feel jealous for their partner if something is off, males get to be more jealous and more dominant because of evolutionary reasons (and I'm talking many thousands of years ago). You see, if a female cheated, there was no telling if the offspring the "father" was caring for, putting energy and resources into was really their biological child. There is no such conflict for women: the children are hers for sure.
I don't want to sound arrogant, but you really have to read up on a lot of topics in order to formulate an opinion about this, and frankly, what you're doing is just anti-establishment, without realizing why these are the norms to begin with. You make it sound like it was the evil of the church and the darkness of the dark ages, but you couldn't be more wrong about the origins of monogamy.
Sorry if this response was rash, I just had this discussion with someone today |
The evolutionary process says males want to spread their seed as much as possible while females want to keep the male around to protect and feed the family. We're still at that stage but have built huge social and cultural structures around that. There's no better example than African tribes where tribal leaders have 20 wives, the old days of harems, why mormons can have many wives, why certain muslim countries have a law that says a man can have 4 wives. Nowhere is 1 wife having 4 husbands the norm or accepted.
Everything else is hyperbole and social constructs. And we see the failure of it, the amount of cheating, the number of divorces etc... it's not really natural, it's part of a socio-cultural structure.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 03:06 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | Radicalus wrote: | Your view of history regarding this topic is simplistic at best, you are straight out wrong. There is ample literature on many subjects regarding both how the dark ages were not so dark and sexualism throughout the ages as well.
My main point though the family as the central building block was conceptualized much later than when it actually evolved. Sexual behavior followed the former and both were followed by the latter.
There are researches by probablt the thousands by now, why the family works. Why children who were raised in well functioning marriages grew up to be more educated, more stable ... etc. Sexual fidelity and the need for it was a consequence of emotional bonds.
Vast majority of people will feel jealous for their partner if something is off, males get to be more jealous and more dominant because of evolutionary reasons (and I'm talking many thousands of years ago). You see, if a female cheated, there was no telling if the offspring the "father" was caring for, putting energy and resources into was really their biological child. There is no such conflict for women: the children are hers for sure.
I don't want to sound arrogant, but you really have to read up on a lot of topics in order to formulate an opinion about this, and frankly, what you're doing is just anti-establishment, without realizing why these are the norms to begin with. You make it sound like it was the evil of the church and the darkness of the dark ages, but you couldn't be more wrong about the origins of monogamy.
Sorry if this response was rash, I just had this discussion with someone today |
The evolutionary process says males want to spread their seed as much as possible while females want to keep the male around to protect and feed the family. We're still at that stage but have built huge social and cultural structures around that. There's no better example than African tribes where tribal leaders have 20 wives, the old days of harems, why mormons can have many wives, why certain muslim countries have a law that says a man can have 4 wives. Nowhere is 1 wife having 4 husbands the norm or accepted.
Everything else is hyperbole and social constructs. And we see the failure of it, the amount of cheating, the number of divorces etc... it's not really natural, it's part of a socio-cultural structure. |
That's one interpretation of it. But in reality things are never as black and white, male polygamist cultures have more to do with sexual oppression and women dehumanization than with the evolutionary process.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 03:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| Nhiumewyn wrote: | | Frant wrote: | | Radicalus wrote: | Your view of history regarding this topic is simplistic at best, you are straight out wrong. There is ample literature on many subjects regarding both how the dark ages were not so dark and sexualism throughout the ages as well.
My main point though the family as the central building block was conceptualized much later than when it actually evolved. Sexual behavior followed the former and both were followed by the latter.
There are researches by probablt the thousands by now, why the family works. Why children who were raised in well functioning marriages grew up to be more educated, more stable ... etc. Sexual fidelity and the need for it was a consequence of emotional bonds.
Vast majority of people will feel jealous for their partner if something is off, males get to be more jealous and more dominant because of evolutionary reasons (and I'm talking many thousands of years ago). You see, if a female cheated, there was no telling if the offspring the "father" was caring for, putting energy and resources into was really their biological child. There is no such conflict for women: the children are hers for sure.
I don't want to sound arrogant, but you really have to read up on a lot of topics in order to formulate an opinion about this, and frankly, what you're doing is just anti-establishment, without realizing why these are the norms to begin with. You make it sound like it was the evil of the church and the darkness of the dark ages, but you couldn't be more wrong about the origins of monogamy.
Sorry if this response was rash, I just had this discussion with someone today |
The evolutionary process says males want to spread their seed as much as possible while females want to keep the male around to protect and feed the family. We're still at that stage but have built huge social and cultural structures around that. There's no better example than African tribes where tribal leaders have 20 wives, the old days of harems, why mormons can have many wives, why certain muslim countries have a law that says a man can have 4 wives. Nowhere is 1 wife having 4 husbands the norm or accepted.
Everything else is hyperbole and social constructs. And we see the failure of it, the amount of cheating, the number of divorces etc... it's not really natural, it's part of a socio-cultural structure. |
That's one interpretation of it. But in reality things are never as black and white, male polygamist cultures have more to do with sexual oppression and women dehumanization than with the evolutionary process. |
So what do sexual oppression and women dehumanization come form?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
