# When did sex become taboo?



## Polednice

A childishly simplistic question for a huge topic, but either share your theories or point me to good ones about why something so fundamental and pleasurable became regarded as taboo and unclean, and when it happened in different societies.


----------



## violadude

It happened when someone finally blurted out their weird-*** fetish and everyone said "hmm perhaps it's best NOT to talk about sex anymore."


----------



## sospiro

Polednice said:


> A childishly simplistic question for a huge topic, but either share your theories or point me to good ones about why something so fundamental and pleasurable became regarded as taboo and unclean, and when it happened in different societies.


I've thought about this & I have absolutely no idea either when or why.

Eating is fundamental & pleasurable so why didn't that become shameful & something only to be done behind closed doors?


----------



## Ukko

It has never been taboo; that would severely diminish populations. In some places and during some periods, it has been circumspect. Same deal with eating, _sospiro_.


----------



## Kopachris

Disclaimer: I am not an anthropologist.

If I had to guess, I would say sex became taboo when Hebrew culture started. Ancient pagan cultures regarded sex as something sacred and to celebrated. The Hebrew, in their efforts to create a culture that was contrary to that of their oppressors, made the public celebration of sex taboo. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity integrated that same taboo during their formation.


----------



## Lukecash12

Well, gentleman, there is a prominent theory about this from archaeological anthropologists who work in tandem with classical archaeologists on sites like Jericho and Catal Huyuk. Basically, chastity and other sexual taboos originally had to do with lineage. When the earliest settlements came about, such as Jericho and Catal Huyuk, one's property had to be protected, in that there could be confusion of lineage. If there was a confusion about lineage, then there would be a confusion about what the child was entitled to, for one. Also, there would be a confusion as to levels of responsibility over the child, and what sort of family relationship would be had with the other candidate(s).

The assumption is, that because invention, stratification, and personal property, became stronger concepts when the earliest settlements were made, infidelity began to be a problem for these ideals.


----------



## Cnote11

Eating is shameful under many doctrines actually. Not the act of eating itself but the desire of wanting more to eat than needed for sustenance. In the same way, sex is seen as a sort of untamed passion, which were looked up negatively in many cultures. We can turn to Judaism and see the strong effect it continues to have on our world, in the evolution towards Christianity and Islam, from the way we look at food to law and morality. This of course wasn't the only place we've seen such things. In Ancient Greece, although it was fine for males, it wasn't proper to depict a female nude, although they didn't shy away from a wet drapery effect which was as much sensuous, if not more so, but this had a lot to do with women's role in society and it eventually became looser as we moved into the Hellenistic period. Although there are some very graphic depictions during the Archaic period. Shaming people's sexuality can be looked at as an effective way of control in many aspects as well. The idea of sex has also shifted with the economy. We look now we can see the "nuclear family" which we didn't have in the old days. It is now more economical to have such a family consisting of father, daughter, daughter, son. We see a shift in sexual norms depending on these type of factors.


----------



## brianwalker

When did marital rape become taboo?


----------



## Cnote11

Marital rape always sounds so odd to me. I'm happy to say that marital rape could not possibly exist in my relationship.


----------



## clavichorder

I don't know, but I certainly wish it wasn't. I think the fact is responsible for a lot of my anxieties. I'm just a horny young man, but I'm also fairly well rounded human being for my age, yet because of my repression, I've feared at times that there has been something seriously wrong with me.


----------



## Dodecaplex

"Why in the world shouldn't they have regarded with awe and reverence that act by which the human race is perpetuated? Not every religion has to have St. Augustine's attitude to sex. Why even in our culture marriages are celebrated in a church, everyone present knows what is going to happen that night, but that doesn't prevent it being a religious ceremony."

-- Wittgenstein

I don't know why I quoted this


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

I think it became taboo when people saw something beautiful being abused (in their eyes) and tried to stop that from happening by creating an aura of mystery to it, making it a sort of "forbidden fruit" whereas it's really just a natural, beautiful thing, yet not has dirty connotations which go along with it as a result of this "tabooed" nature which has been forced upon it.


----------



## Cnote11

In what way do we actually find sex to be taboo? Is sex taboo unequally between genders?


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

Cnote11 said:


> In what way do we actually find sex to be taboo? Is sex taboo unequally between genders?


The fact that sex is treated like a dirty secret as opposed to a natural and beautiful part of life... the very perpetuator of life.


----------



## Cnote11

In a lot of my experiences I find that, more and more, it isn't treated as a dirty secret, but rather something very natural. It would very much depend on which crowd you find yourself in. All in all though, sex is highly prominent in our society and is very much out in the open a large amount of the time.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

People talk a lot about the hypocrisy of sex carrying more of a taboo in media than violence, but the thing is, for most people, there's more of an element of interpersonal privacy/intimacy to sex than most things (including violence). It's complex, and a paragraph-long internet post couldn't even begin to scratch the surface, but I really doubt it's just about dumb religious prudes thinking sex is "dirty".

Even if it was 100% a moralizing religious thing, I suspect that formed from some natural trend in human thinking.


----------



## Cnote11

That is another point I was going to bring up was about sex being a more private thing, but it doesn't follow then that is it taboo and needs to be thought about as so.


----------



## starthrower

Right after Cain killed Abel and had sex with his mother.


----------



## Meaghan

Cnote11 said:


> In what way do we actually find sex to be taboo? *Is sex taboo unequally between genders?*


Yes. Men are expected, at least by American society, to desire sex and to make it clear that they do. Otherwise, questions are raised about their masculinity. Women who express desire for sex in ways that are tolerated for men get called ****s. In other words, women's sex drives are more taboo than men's.


----------



## Cnote11

It is interesting to compare that to the Japanese at the current moment. There is a term over there going around. This term is "herbivore", which refers to the growing number of males that do not exhibit similar sex drive characteristics as their counterparts in the west. There are a lot of complaints and derogatory put downs that actually are coming more from the female side of things than the male side towards this group of men.


----------



## starthrower

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It doesn't apply anymore. Sex is no longer taboo for male or female. Pornography is mainstream. Sex is everywhere! It only seems to be taboo territory for politicians which is really stupid. I mean they screw us so many other ways, but people still want their elected officials to be sexually wholesome. I'd rather they get laid and give the people a fair shake.


----------



## Cnote11

I would say you're firing too soon on that, starthrower. Although I do agree that sex is definitely in the mainstream. Where is it that you come from?


----------



## Meaghan

(Disregard, disorganized post)


----------



## science

In all human cultures, sex is "taboo," (HillTroll's attempt to remind us of the precise meaning of "taboo" will be studiously ignored, for fools do not learn from the wise) in the sense that people ordinarily try not to be seen having it. That's one of the "human universals." Pornography, ritual prostitution, and so on are always exceptions to the way most people do sex. 

I'd guess that it has something to do with the adaptations for living in larger social groups. So I'd guess sex became taboo before about 150,000 years ago.


----------



## starthrower

I come from a weird place called the United States where puritanical religious guilt and extreme decadence co-exist within the same individuals in many instances. Jimmy Swaggart was the poster boy back in the 1980s. Remember him?


----------



## Cnote11

I was born in 1989, so I don't remember him from being alive at the time  but I am aware. This doesn't mean it isn't taboo in the public eye or as a cultural phenomena, even if the action is different.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with science. In what way did HilTroll give us a definition of taboo? Would you genuinely say that we do not have customs which restrict or prohibit certain kinds of sex?


----------



## clavichorder

I feel like if I am viewed as "masculine," and with a sex drive, that I'm going to be thought of as a jerk. For some reason I'm particularly insecure about that. And yet when I hear stories of friends who have had sex and relationships at my age(most it seems), and looking at my void experience with the opposite sex, I feel just as insecure. Its confusing.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

Cnote11 said:


> In a lot of my experiences I find that, more and more, it isn't treated as a dirty secret, but rather something very natural. It would very much depend on which crowd you find yourself in. All in all though, sex is highly prominent in our society and is very much out in the open a large amount of the time.


Yeah. I guess you're right, but I still feel like it's brought out into the open as something that's "naughty" as opposed to natural...

Honestly I'm not one of those people who cares whether other people find it to be a taboo or the opposite. I was just speculating since OP brought it up.

I guess I don't really care enough to make a decent argument either way... oh well.


----------



## Cnote11

Iforgotmypassword said:


> Yeah. I guess you're right, but I still feel like it's brought out into the open as something that's "naughty" as opposed to natural...
> 
> Honestly I'm not one of those people who cares whether other people find it to be a taboo or the opposite. I was just speculating since OP brought it up.
> 
> I guess I don't really care enough to make a decent argument either way... oh well.


Nah, I know what you mean. Even a lot of the sex in the mainstream is taken from the angle of how "scandalous" it is. A lot of it in attempt to stir up more controversy for media ratings however...


----------



## Lenfer

I believe it was when *God* caught *Adam* and *Eve* behind the bushes. :devil:


----------



## Couchie

Though I am as outraged as the next non-Christian, let's be frank. The taboo on sex makes sex sexier.


----------



## Polednice

science said:


> In all human cultures, sex is "taboo," (HillTroll's attempt to remind us of the precise meaning of "taboo" will be studiously ignored, for fools do not learn from the wise) in the sense that people ordinarily try not to be seen having it. That's one of the "human universals." Pornography, ritual prostitution, and so on are always exceptions to the way most people do sex.
> 
> I'd guess that it has something to do with the adaptations for living in larger social groups. So I'd guess sex became taboo before about 150,000 years ago.


There's a sliding scale of tabooness though. At one end, it's something not to be watched by others, and not to be talked about in polite company, but is otherwise seen as something wonderful and natural. At the other end, it's despicable to even talk about it with innuendo, there are only certain positions that are permissible for gentle-people, and I imagine it's a rather modern phenomena to view sex as a dirty act that should only ever be engaged in when trying for a baby. I don't think that attitude is 150,000 years old.


----------



## violadude

I know I was only half joking in my first post but do you guys really think sex would be less taboo if we hadn't come up with so many erm "creative" ways to do it? I kind of do.


----------



## Cnote11

If we stuck to missionary in marriage then perhaps sex would be less taboo


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> If we stuck to missionary in marriage then perhaps sex would be less taboo


That sure would be boring though.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> I know I was only half joking in my first post but do you guys really think sex would be less taboo if we hadn't come up with so many erm "creative" ways to do it? I kind of do.


I don't see why. What I find most interesting (and most stupid) is that people can't look at the "creative" ways of others and think, "whatever floats your boat", but instead think that being creative or indulging in fantasy is a form of depravity. That's a taboo I can't understand.


----------



## Cnote11

I think people should be creative with their sex. I've heard that a lot of people think about other things while having sex, which seems like an impossibility for me. Just seems rather bizarre  They must be bored of out their minds to have to think in their heads of ways to make it pleasurable for them while having sex.


----------



## starthrower

I wasn't bored when I was your age, sonny! If you get to be 50 or over and you've been with the same woman for 25 years it can get rather mundane.


----------



## Cnote11

I'll see in 25 years whether or not it gets mundane or not, but I'm putting in a good guess that it won't! I need more than 25 years for my master plan of sex I have scrawled out. The good times never end


----------



## Couchie

Cnote11 said:


> I'll see in 25 years whether or not it gets mundane or not, but I'm putting in a good guess that it won't! I need more than 25 years for my master plan of sex I have scrawled out. The good times never end


I would probably refrain from mentioning this on the first date.


----------



## Cnote11

Luckily I'm engaged. It has been 4 years so I only have 21 left. In a way I think mentioning it on the first date may be beneficial. I wouldn't want to waste my time and it would be a lovely way to weed out the unqualified ones! Not enough of this in society. Far too much modesty and projecting false images.


----------



## AmateurComposer

starthrower said:


> I wasn't bored when I was your age, sonny! If you get to be 50 or over and you've been with the same woman for 25 years it can get rather mundane.


Not necessarily!


----------



## AmateurComposer

Kopachris said:


> Disclaimer: I am not an anthropologist.
> 
> If I had to guess, I would say sex became taboo when Hebrew culture started. Ancient pagan cultures regarded sex as something sacred and to celebrated. The Hebrew, in their efforts to create a culture that was contrary to that of their oppressors, made the public celebration of sex taboo. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity integrated that same taboo during their formation.


I am not an anthropologist, either. However, I do not see where you got this idea of yours. While the pagans had more leisure attitude towards causual sex, even incorporating it in religious practices, the biblical text indicates that the Hebrew code of law organizes sex exclusively in the family framework. Sex, in Judaism, is not a taboo, and it should be enjoyable, but it belongs *only* between husband and wife.


----------



## Philip

This is only my opinion, but i think sex should only be enjoyed in the sanctity of marriage.


----------



## Cnote11

I must say that I find that to be a horrid idea. I think sex before marriage is actually extremely important. Sexual chemistry is really an important part of a relationship moving forward through life. A lot of marriages end up in rocky territory out of feeling unfulfilled in this area. I think it is important before you commit to a relationship for long-term that you evaluate every aspect of the relationship, and that includes the sexual areas as well. If the act hasn't taken place yet, then you can't evaluate it, leaving it as a complete unknown going into the marriage. It doesn't seem highly practical to me.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

It isn't a horrid idea, specifically because Philip clearly states that it's only his personal opinion on the subject. What's horrid, in my own opinion, is trying to force your own ideas of sexual morality upon everyone else by legal means. That's the worst form of sexual perversion.

Out of tact, I won't mention the human institution that promotes this view, other than to say that it involves belief in one or more supreme beings who, for some unknown reason, seem unduly concerned about what goes on in the bedrooms of this little corner of the very much wider universe that they are supposed to have created.


----------



## Philip

April fools guys...... i have sex all the time!!


----------



## Cnote11

I knew it  but my point still stands.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I wasn't too sure about the sincerity of it, either--but I think my point still stands.


----------



## Cnote11

I indeed think it does, Fsharpmajor.


----------



## clavichorder

Philip said:


> April fools guys...... i have sex all the time!!


Choice of the words, particularly "sanctity" should have been a give-away. That being said, I was still fooled somehow...


----------



## Guest

What exactly does anybody here mean by taboo? Not talked about in public? Well, why does it need to be? I have always laughed at notions of needing sex education in our schools - as if the human race was unable to figure out how things worked prior to public education enlightening us.

Are we talking about pornography and the dirty name it has? Gee, I don't know, why don't we celebrate more openly a medium that exploits women in all sorts of demeaning and humiliating ways for the carnal enjoyment of males?

My question is, why are we becoming such a hyper-sexualized society? What taboos we had are swiftly falling away. Finding an enjoyable comedy anymore that isn't crammed full with raunchy sexual jokes is virtually impossible. I shake my head in bewilderment at the poor actresses who have bought into the line that they need to drop their clothes on screen to be taken seriously as an adult actress, when anybody who has read anything about Hollywood knows that the real motivation is probably to stoke the perversions of producers and directors - they just have fancier and more expensive casting couches than the pornographers who are at least up front about their motivations. Great movies like Casablance are still held in awe today, with not a scrap of immodesty, while the tripe that gets pedaled today is a flash in the pan. Our loosening of taboos is resulting in kids, sometimes not even in double digits in age, already engaging in sex. We glorify the teenage pregnancy with shows on MTV. Hell, I checked out the Mike Myers movie "The Cat in the Hat" because my kids love Dr. Seuss, and had to turn it off when Mike Myers starts making double entendre jokes about dirty hoes and have to watch a scantilly clad Paris Hilton cavorting on screen - in a Dr. Seuss movie! What taboos?

Perhaps taboos originated with more primitive, but possibly more intelligent, people realizing that just because you can talk about a thing doesn't mean you should. Exactly what benefit has it been to society for more girls to think that it is okay to shed their clothes for magazines and movies so that guys can stare at them and **********? Or for guys to jump from one girl to the next, leaving a wake of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STD's?


----------



## Guest

Kopachris said:


> Disclaimer: I am not an anthropologist.
> 
> If I had to guess, I would say sex became taboo when Hebrew culture started. Ancient pagan cultures regarded sex as something sacred and to celebrated. The Hebrew, in their efforts to create a culture that was contrary to that of their oppressors, made the public celebration of sex taboo. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity integrated that same taboo during their formation.


Regarding sexual rites in ancient pagan religious beliefs, I would just say that men have always been fairly crafty in coming up with reasons to convince women to sleep with them. That certainly sounds convenient - hey, lady, you need to come have sex with me because this idol over here says you should!

Perhaps it says something about the monotheistic Abrahamic religions that they taught men that the privilege of sharing in the joys of sex with women should come with a commitment to honor, love, and respect the female and practice fidelity to her.

It is also interesting that many of those more open ancient cultures that had less taboos about sex also engaged minors for their sexual appetites, and forced many, both male and female, into prostitution. If that is what a society with less sexual taboos gets you, then I'll keep my taboos, thank you very much.


----------



## kv466

While there is a tiny bit of truth to this the rest seems to be coming from the inside of a sterile, little bubble. Mike Myers, eh? By the time I was eight I had already seen the original Michael Myers terrorize Haddonfield and thought he was a bit tame next to my favorite at that point, Leatherface. I don't know what girls we're talking about taking off their clothes because anyone who grew up in the 80's knows very well that those were the glory days of getting naked for no reason whatsoever and it happened in every movie by any actress; something that does not happen much if at all today. As far as the directors and producers of these films having hidden agendas and basically being reduced to a cheap porn director, well...I haven't the slightest idea where a mentality like that could come from. It isn't taboo, remember? It's just sex, so why would they...anyway, it sounds so paranoid and filthy. Comedy full of raunchy sex jokes? I was just fully entertained by Tower Heist where there wasn't a single raunchy sex anything nor any of the weed dominant joking that goes around so freely today; it was just a good, funny movie as are many coming out today. Yeah, there can only be one Casablanca...and thank bog for that! Oh, yeah, and I've always felt like this and was exposed to the worse and most horrifying things at a very young age. I can count the number of girls I've been with, have never gotten one pregnant, no abortions and no STD's.


----------



## Cnote11

You honestly think we don't need sex education? Right, you know what was happening throughout the history of human sex? How about pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease rates being much higher. I can't tell you how much the people in my school learned from sex education that they were oblivious to. Spreading information about sex and getting people educated is never a bad thing. I'm absolutely offended that you would think education was a negative process. Sex education isn't a manual on "how to have sex", if that is what you think. It is to educate teenagers about issues surrounding sex, like the importance of pap smears, discussing safe sex, informing the teenagers on things like HPV, STDs, HIV/AIDS, pregnancy risks, as well as being an anatomy class, discussing birth and post-birth, etc. It isn't even all about having sex! Women go about getting infections far too often because they are uneducated about proper cleansing, acid balance, and what things can dramatically change that balance. You have it wrong when you think it is about just sex; it is about sexual health in general, sex or no sex. Add to that, if people are to be having sex, my dear friend, I would HOPE that they were EDUCATED ABOUT IT. Also, I'm literally dying at the fact that you don't think Hollywood wasn't highly sexualized back when Casablanca was made. That's just another one of those rubbish "everything is going down the drain" posts with your bias retrospective nostalgia.


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> You honestly think we don't need sex education? Right, you know what was happening throughout the history of human sex? How about pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease rates being much higher. I can't tell you how much the people in my school learned from sex education that they were oblivious to. Spreading information about sex and getting people educated is never a bad thing. I'm absolutely offended that you would think education was a negative process. Sex education isn't a manual on "how to have sex", if that is what you think. It is to educate teenagers about issues surrounding sex, like the importance of pap smears, discussing safe sex, informing the teenagers on things like HPV, STDs, HIV/AIDS, pregnancy risks, as well as being an anatomy class, discussing birth and post-birth, etc. It isn't even all about having sex! Women go about getting infections far too often because they are uneducated about proper cleansing, acid balance, and what things can dramatically change that balance. You have it wrong when you think it is about just sex; it is about sexual health in general, sex or no sex. Add to that, if people are to be having sex, my dear friend, I would HOPE that they were EDUCATED ABOUT IT. Also, I'm literally dying at the fact that you don't think Hollywood wasn't highly sexualized back when Casablanca was made. That's just another one of those rubbish "everything is going down the drain" posts with your bias retrospective nostalgia.


Really, STD rates are declining? How much of that had to do with the advent of antibiotics, as opposed to sex ed? As to the numbers declining, you can look at this 2010 report from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/stateprofiles/usmap.htm
Primary and secondary syphillis has been on the rise from 1999-2008, more than doubling in that time. Gonorrhea has been flat, but Chlamydia is on the rise, again, nearly doubling. HIV is still a problem. Half a million people have died from it in the USA, and ~1.1 million people are living with it, with approximately 20% unaware.


----------



## kv466




----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> What exactly does anybody here mean by taboo? Not talked about in public? Well, why does it need to be? I have always laughed at notions of needing sex education in our schools - as if the human race was unable to figure out how things worked prior to public education enlightening us.
> 
> Are we talking about pornography and the dirty name it has? Gee, I don't know, why don't we celebrate more openly a medium that exploits women in all sorts of demeaning and humiliating ways for the carnal enjoyment of males?
> 
> My question is, why are we becoming such a hyper-sexualized society? What taboos we had are swiftly falling away. Finding an enjoyable comedy anymore that isn't crammed full with raunchy sexual jokes is virtually impossible. I shake my head in bewilderment at the poor actresses who have bought into the line that they need to drop their clothes on screen to be taken seriously as an adult actress, when anybody who has read anything about Hollywood knows that the real motivation is probably to stoke the perversions of producers and directors - they just have fancier and more expensive casting couches than the pornographers who are at least up front about their motivations. Great movies like Casablance are still held in awe today, with not a scrap of immodesty, while the tripe that gets pedaled today is a flash in the pan. Our loosening of taboos is resulting in kids, sometimes not even in double digits in age, already engaging in sex. We glorify the teenage pregnancy with shows on MTV. Hell, I checked out the Mike Myers movie "The Cat in the Hat" because my kids love Dr. Seuss, and had to turn it off when Mike Myers starts making double entendre jokes about dirty hoes and have to watch a scantilly clad Paris Hilton cavorting on screen - in a Dr. Seuss movie! What taboos?
> 
> Perhaps taboos originated with more primitive, but possibly more intelligent, people realizing that just because you can talk about a thing doesn't mean you should. Exactly what benefit has it been to society for more girls to think that it is okay to shed their clothes for magazines and movies so that guys can stare at them and **********? Or for guys to jump from one girl to the next, leaving a wake of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STD's?


Equating sexual openness with objectification and promiscuity then drawing a line to saying kids don't need is sex ed is all part of the problem.


----------



## Cnote11

DrMike said:


> Really, STD rates are declining? How much of that had to do with the advent of antibiotics, as opposed to sex ed? As to the numbers declining, you can look at this 2010 report from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/stateprofiles/usmap.htm
> Primary and secondary syphillis has been on the rise from 1999-2008, more than doubling in that time. Gonorrhea has been flat, but Chlamydia is on the rise, again, nearly doubling. HIV is still a problem. Half a million people have died from it in the USA, and ~1.1 million people are living with it, with approximately 20% unaware.


Exactly, with 20 percent unaware. Obviously people aren't being educated well enough. I never said sexual education is curing rates of STDs. Perhaps you should read my post again. My point is that we need it, and more of it, because people are not educated properly on these things. But you're right, a study from 1999-2008 really speaks to what was happening in the 1600s. I know a thing or two about AIDs and STDs and the rates because I happen to live in the Detroit area, which is one of the highest areas in the counties for these diseases. When you look at the education system it isn't hard to see why. There isn't a uniform sexual education in this country and majority of what is put in place is WEAK because of people who think its horrible to teach it. My point is that we need sexual education and we need comprehensive sexual education.


----------



## Guest

What do the 1600's have to do with anything? Problems back then can hardly be attributable to a lack of sex ed. Hell, back then they thought that illness was due to an imabalance of humors, and a good leaching or bleeding could set you right. Under those circumstances, what exactly could the teaching of sex ed have accomplished? 

STD rates, at least for the bacterial ones, declined sharply in the 1950s, thanks to antibiotics. My point in showing the stats from 1999-2008 was to show that, in a decade where sex ed is higher than it has probably ever been in all of world history, STD rates are rising. You claimed that sex ed, among other things, would lower STD rates.

As to the 20% being unaware, that doesn't mean being unaware what HIV is or how it is transmitted, rather it is an estimate of how many people are infected and don't know it, as there can be a very long period between becoming infected with HIV and actually progressing to AIDS. The initial HIV infection can seem as mild as a simple flu. Do you go and get an HIV test everytime you feel like you have the flu?


----------



## Cnote11

You mention that we shouldn't teach sexual education because people have been figuring out how to have sex all throughout history. My point is that isn't what sex education is about. That is exactly my point I am trying to make. If we didn't develop an educated society about these issues then it would be equivalent to (WARNING: a tad bit of hyperbole here)1600s idea of sex(/WARNING). Most people think you catch colds from going outside in the cold, so don't tell me you think people would be smart enough to be educated about it on their own. I'm not claiming that sexual education would decrease STDs outright and your statistics don't bother me whatsoever, and in fact can be a "correlation doesn't equal causation" case. To take you seriously I'd want to see the amount of tests done for STDs. Are they similar to the 1950s or is there more testing today due to awareness and availability? If so, then it is only natural that the rates go up. Also, what is the amount of sex being had in comparison to 1950? If we are more sexually liberated now, it only follows that the potential for more STDs is plausible. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people are still poorly educated on these matters. There are numerous factors that could skew the statistics and I've only presented a view. Also, yes. Sexual education is beneficial for teaching people about the processes of seeking help, and what options they have in order to get tested and the likes. A lot of people aren't aware and it does help. You need to get out of your mind that sexual education is purely about how to have sex. Of course, not all sexual education programs teach anything near to this. In fact, most of them teach nothing at all due to the pressure from parents. We may have sexual education programs, but are they effective? No, and that makes all the difference.

edit: Had to edit my post so the poster doesn't go on a distraction tour.


----------



## Polednice

Those CDC figures demonstrate rising rates of certain STDs from 1999-2008, but I couldn't see any comparisons with pre-1999 figures, and it is not inconceivable that the quality of sex education has declined in the past decade.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> leaving a wake of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STD's?


I grew up in a small Canadian town with a lot of evangelical Christian families, and it's a plain, simple fact that it was in those families where the majority of these things--plus the occasional joyous shotgun wedding, in lieu of an abortion--actually happened.

Much of it, I personally think, could have been avoided if the parents hadn't opted to keep their kids out of sex education class. I wouldn't have denied them that right (and I wouldn't now). But it produced too many of the exact consequences that it was meant to prevent in the first place.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on the subject.


----------



## Guest

A couple of points. I never said that we shouldn't have sex ed classes - I said that I thought the notion was laughable. The sex ed classes I had, growing up in California (hardly a conservative enclave) began in the 6th grade, in which case it pretty much was just a How-To class. I then had the requisite instruction until my sophomore year in high school, which was typically a one-day thing pawned off on the PE teacher - yeah, they really took sex ed seriously! Then my sophomore year, I had sex ed crammed into a 1 semester course that also included driver's training. There we did go more into detail - the teacher gave us a slide show of different kinds of STDs. I don't have an objection to sex ed per se, but I think that it has more and more turned into a means of pushing an ideological agenda than promoting good health and knowledge. 

I apologize for only having the statistics from 1999 onward. I did try to find statistics for the entire 20th century, but have had some difficulty. I did see some charts showing the decline in STDs in the 50's with the advent of antibiotics, but then climbing again steadily from the 60's onward, but the graphs didn't have axes, and I couldn't find the data from which they were derived - I like to show facts.

Cnote - you first made claims that sex ed could help lower things like STDs, but when I present you with evidence to the contrary, you turn away from that. Now you suggest that our greater openness towards sex (I believe you refer to it as being more sexually liberated) - no doubt in no small part due to the increase in sex ed - means that there is greater potential for contracting STDs. So wait - what causes more STDs? Less sex ed and being less open, or "liberated" about sex, or being more liberated? You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Guest

Fsharpmajor said:


> I grew up in a small Canadian town with a lot of evangelical Christian families, and it's a plain, simple fact that it was in those families where the majority of these things--plus the occasional joyous shotgun wedding, in lieu of an abortion--actually happened.
> 
> Much of it, I personally think, could have been avoided if the parents hadn't opted to keep their kids out of sex education class. I wouldn't have denied them that right (and I wouldn't now). But it produced too many of the exact consequences that it was meant to prevent in the first place.
> 
> Anyway, that's all I have to say on the subject.


No offense, but your anecdotal evidence from a small town in Canada just screams of being non-representative. Were I to conduct a study on the matter, and included only small towns with potentially higher than average frequencies of Evangelical Christians, then I probably would see lots of statistics skewed towards Evangelical Christianity being the causative factor. While I don't discount what happened in your small town, you need to expand the scope if you are going to apply your findings to larger populations.


----------



## Cnote11

I'm sorry, but I'm finished after this post. I highly doubt the openness in sex is due to sexual education programs. Don't be silly. Next, as I've stated numerous times, I didn't say that STDs would be lowered necessarily by sexual education classes at this moment. I simply said that they would be less abundant with greater knowledge as opposed to no knowledge whatsoever. Next, there is a difference between "potential" and actual cases. I didn't say "having more sexual partners causes more STDs", I said "having more sexual partners increases potential". Next, I believe I said that the sexual education programs in place are NOT EFFECTIVE. Therefore, increased sexual "liberation" plus lack of knowledge could make returns on that potential. This isn't a necessary cause though. The sexual education programs as are should be rid of and retooled to actually be more useful.

Having said that, if you find the current form of sexual education, such as the one you had, laughable, then I fully agree. That is what is causing a lot of problems and it needs to be changed to include the things I mentioned. If that is all, then what is this whole debate about? Nothing.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Why do we need education in something everyone knows how to do since the very beginning of the human species (otherwise we wouldn't be here at all now)? Of course I am not the one to give advice on how to run European and North American schools but it seems, in view of the falling quality of education the sensible thing would be to cram a few more hours of mathematics or foreign languages or economics or some other useful subject instead of this nonsense. I am pretty sure the West's rival on the global market (China for example) bother much more about giving their children marketable skills and not "sex education".


----------



## Cnote11

Maybe you should try reading the last page where it is explicitly stated that sexual education isn't a "how-to" manual for having sex. I'm rather afraid that is all people think when they hear the term "sexual education". I suppose we could spend more time turning our children into robots to serve our economy in the name of the outdated idea of nationalism as you suggested, however.


----------



## Meaghan

SiegendesLicht said:


> Why do we need education in something everyone knows how to do since the very beginning of the human species (otherwise we wouldn't be here at all now)? Of course I am not the one to give advice on how to run European and North American schools but it seems, in view of the falling quality of education the sensible thing would be to cram a few more hours of mathematics or foreign languages or economics or some other useful subject instead of this nonsense. I am pretty sure the West's rival on the global market (China for example) bother much more about giving their children marketable skills and not "sex education".


Quit yer trollin'


----------



## Polednice

This is the kind of ideological protectionism I was talking about in the Obama thread. Don't read _that_ political book, it has ideas contrary to mine which are therefore dangerous. Don't talk to kids about sex, you might give them a desire to try it. Well let's not teach kids about Hitler, the exposure to Nazism may be too much for them.

Too often parents think that sex education is used as an endorsement of promiscuity. It's just about giving kids information because the more informed we are, the more equipped we are to deal with life.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

On this very last page you are saying yourself that sex education programs are not effective. Well, I propose to throw them out and replace them with something the usefulness of which has been proven (like maths). As for information on STDs and processes of getting help, at least in my country that is the job of the school doctor/nurse. And while I would hardly ever present my country as an example of anything good and effective, this solution seems to me quite reasonable.


----------



## Cnote11

I'm not sure if you're being serious because this seems rather obvious, but I stated that they aren't effective because they don't focus on what they need to be focusing on and are poorly ran, with a lot of opposition that is crippling the programs. Just because something is currently ineffective doesn't mean it is a poor idea and should be done away with.


----------



## Cnote11

Polednice said:


> This is the kind of ideological protectionism I was talking about in the Obama thread. Don't read _that_ political book, it has ideas contrary to mine which are therefore dangerous. Don't talk to kids about sex, you might give them a desire to try it. Well let's not teach kids about Hitler, the exposure to Nazism may be too much for them.
> 
> Too often parents think that sex education is used as an endorsement of promiscuity. It's just about giving kids information because the more informed we are, the more equipped we are to deal with life.


Ah... false cause and the good ol' slippery slope! The number one way to justify everything!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Yes, I am 100% serious. And while I agree that not everything that is currently ineffective is a bad idea, I still think sex ed programs will always be ineffective just because of the nature of the subject. Sexual life is a far too intimate and touchy subject to be brought out in a classroom before 20+ kids at once. Ideally passing on knowledge about that sphere of life should be the parents' job and in case of the purely medical side of the matter, the doctor's. 
And no, I am not trolling.


----------



## Cnote11

The parents do not possess the knowledge of the social infrastructure nor the medicinal side to teach children. I wasn't aware that AIDS was an intimate subject. I wasn't aware that something that is common for every human being was extremely touchy. I think we need to get over the fact that every male has a ***** and every woman has a ******. It is a bit immature otherwise.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Now you seem to be the one who is trolling. My English may not be the best but I think I said it plain enough: the medical side of the subject (prevention of STDs) is for the doctors. The social/psychological/emotional/whatever side is for the parents to explain (if they are good parents, that is). At least I would prefer very much that my children learn about relationships, sexuality and all that stuff from me in their own time, rather than from some stranger . Where do the teachers belong in that scheme?


----------



## kv466

:trp:

Thread closed due to excessive bickering.


----------



## Polednice

SiegendesLicht said:


> Now you seem to be the one who is trolling. My English may not be the best but I think I said it plain enough: the medical side of the subject (prevention of STDs) is for the doctors. The social/psychological/emotional/whatever side is for the parents to explain (if they are good parents, that is). At least I would prefer very much that my children learn about relationships, sexuality and all that stuff from me in their own time, rather than from some stranger . Where do the teachers belong in that scheme?


The teachers belong in teaching both sides of the story. School is about intellectual as well as emotional development, and, even with good parents, children can't turn to them for help with everything - sometimes kids need a more impartial go between, and one that is better educated than their peers. This approach is already evident in education about drugs - children are not just taught the chemical mechanics, they're taught how it affects people socially, psychologically, and emotionally. Viewing school as a centre of information acquisition is what allows it to churn out corporate drones with poor critical thinking skills.

As such, ineffective sex education ought to be replaced with effective sex education, not maths. 99% of children in school will be infinitely better served by STD and contraceptive knowledge than they will trigonometry.


----------



## Polednice

An addendum: I think the comparison with drugs education is a potentially interesting one. It falls into a similar area - non-academic life skills and experiences - and is a controversial subject regarding how we use our bodies. And yet, far fewer people object to kids being taught about it in school. Why? Silly taboos. Few people say that drugs education should be banned because the information might lead children to start abuse, and yet many more people say that exact thing about sex education. Sadly, it probably comes down to whether or not people think the class-room is serving their political ideological purposes, and most people are happy for kids to be informed about drugs, but fear that broaching the taboo of sex will lead them to experimentation. I'm sure the effects of this are quite ironic...


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Polednice said:


> 99% of children in school will be infinitely better served by STD and contraceptive knowledge than they will trigonometry.


Sure, and then schools will produce people who cannot tell Austria from Australia (let alone Bach from Beethoven) but know everything about condoms 

And no, I don't believe that popular stereotype that American schoolkids are already there. But they seem to be well on the way.


----------



## kv466

^^

Ok, so Poles said 'trigonometry' and not geography or music appreciation. Also,...American kids kinda are there. I've seem 'em and heard them speak.


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> An addendum: I think the comparison with drugs education is a potentially interesting one. It falls into a similar area - non-academic life skills and experiences - and is a controversial subject regarding how we use our bodies. And yet, far fewer people object to kids being taught about it in school. Why? Silly taboos. Few people say that drugs education should be banned because the information might lead children to start abuse, and yet many more people say that exact thing about sex education. Sadly, it probably comes down to whether or not people think the class-room is serving their political ideological purposes, and most people are happy for kids to be informed about drugs, but fear that broaching the taboo of sex will lead them to experimentation. I'm sure the effects of this are quite ironic...


Yeah, it's got to be cultural.

If it were a situation where we all agreed that we want to prevent STDs and teen pregnancies, then we could just do empirical studies as to what methods best deliver those results, and then design our curricula accordingly. We don't do that because that's not the actual issue. It's about who rules in the classroom.

We've taken out (in the US) the 10 Commandments and mandatory prayer, and replaced them with sex-ed. I can certainly see why that's upsetting to people. They're losing a cultural struggle, and in at least a sentimental way I can sympathize.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I meant the general education of course, which includes all of that. At least I would like my kids at school to learn about cubic roots and European capitals and Baroque composers and have the sex education left for their parents to do. And like I said before, I am sure the same information will be received much better when it comes from a loving and caring parent and not from some stranger. And yes, if I ever feel incompetent on some issue there are always books and the internet. At least I can read quite well, my school wasted no time on sex education


----------



## science

SiegendesLicht said:


> I meant the general education of course, which includes all of that. At least I would like my kids at school to learn about cubic root and European capitals and Baroque composers and have the sex education left for their parents to do. And like I said before, I am sure the same information will be received much better when it comes from a loving and caring parent and not from some stranger. And yes, if I ever feel incompetent on some issue there are always books and the internet. At least I can read quite well, my school wasted no time on sex education


I genuinely don't blame you at all for that.

It'd be nice if we could trust the parents of the world to do so in a way that would be an effective contribution to public health.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> No offense, but your anecdotal evidence from a small town in Canada just screams of being non-representative. Were I to conduct a study on the matter, and included only small towns with potentially higher than average frequencies of Evangelical Christians, then I probably would see lots of statistics skewed towards Evangelical Christianity being the causative factor. While I don't discount what happened in your small town, you need to expand the scope if you are going to apply your findings to larger populations.


I have no argument with that--you're quite right to point out that it's only anecdotal evidence. That said, though, a lot of the stuff I saw that went on--even though I was seeing it as a little kid--made me very deeply disposed to distrust religion in any form.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

kv466 said:


> :trp:
> 
> Thread closed due to excessive bickering.


Aw--we've only just gotten started! I still haven't seen an ad hom of any real quality.


----------



## Cnote11

SiegendesLicht said:


> Now you seem to be the one who is trolling. My English may not be the best but I think I said it plain enough: the medical side of the subject (prevention of STDs) is for the doctors. The social/psychological/emotional/whatever side is for the parents to explain (if they are good parents, that is). At least I would prefer very much that my children learn about relationships, sexuality and all that stuff from me in their own time, rather than from some stranger . Where do the teachers belong in that scheme?


That's good for you. Just because you don't want your child doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed for others. I can read just fine, but how do you expect doctors to teach this to ALL children, when there are a lot of children, especially in the poor areas where AIDS is prevalent, do not have any health care to see doctors. What do you propose? You are not from the United States and are obviously ignorant to the situations that the citizens find themselves in. Why not have a doctor teach it in schools? Are doctors not strangers? Are some teachers not doctors? I'm sorry that you want to trap your child specifically in your world view and not expose them to others apparently. Go ahead and do that, but do not deny the rights to other people. Also, again, most parents are not qualified in order to do so. This is the final word on this and I will have no more of this non-sense from someone who thinks you can't be knowledgeable on sex and geography apparently.  Absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## science

Fsharpmajor said:


> Aw--we've only just gotten started! I still haven't seen an ad hom of any real quality.


We're getting there!


----------



## Cnote11

I'm not going to sit around and listen to a racist who so obviously despises black people as evidenced by her multiple racist comments in the rap thread. This can also be backed up by the fact that she loves Wagner. Also, her opinion is automatically invalid because she's a female. An ugly one at that because she's German!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Cnote11, I like you too 



Cnote11 said:


> An ugly one at that because she's German!


I take this as a compliment because I greatly respect that nation and would love to belong to. However if I really were a citizen of this musical superpower, I think I would share your views on sex ed. Germans seem to be even more "advanced" in that area.



Fsharpmajor said:


> Aw--we've only just gotten started! I still haven't seen an ad hom of any real quality.


And I for one am not going to grant you this pleasure.


----------



## Cnote11

I tried to grant him it ):


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Cnote11 said:


> That's good for you. Just because you don't want your child doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed for others. I can read just fine, but how do you expect doctors to teach this to ALL children, when there are a lot of children, especially in the poor areas where AIDS is prevalent, do not have any health care to see doctors.


Do you think they will base their lifestyle choices on something some teacher said at school? Teachers mostly don't carry that much authority for teenagers.



Cnote11 said:


> What do you propose? You are not from the United States and are obviously ignorant to the situations that the citizens find themselves in.


I have enough interest for the cultural wars in that country to have some idea about this situation.



Cnote11 said:


> Why not have a doctor teach it in schools?


One reason is that there are only so many hours a day for school education and more emphasis on sex ed and other nonsense will make the really useful subjects suffer.


----------



## Cnote11

I doubt that a quarter of a required health course will make the other subjects suffer. Would you also suggest taking about electives as well for more math? Also, I expect teenagers to use their brains and figure out their own lifestyle choices and not depend on other people's views for how to live their lives. Also knowing something about the war doesn't qualify you as someone who knows more than just the war. FYI, teaching children about STDs is in no way teaching a lifestyle choice. We teach children about viruses in biology. I don't see how educating them about stuff that is very pertinent to their lives is a bad thing.


----------



## Cnote11

Either way, Polednice, I think we can see in which ways sex is still taboo and for what reasons...


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I don't claim to be an expert either on sex education or American culture wars. I am simply offering my opinion. As for figuring out the lifestyles choices, people do figure them out on the basis of some previous information, whether it comes from parents, teachers, peers, mass media, or somewhere else. The mind does not live in a vacuum. I just believe parents are the best source of such information, rather then schools.

It is long past midnight here, so with your permission I am leaving this thread until tomorrow :tiphat:


----------



## Cnote11

That is fine. Enjoy your sleep! I agree that the mind does not live in a vacuum, but good ideas come from all sources, not just parents, although they do play a central role. It is up to each individual to gather information from all over the map and filter it accordingly. That is the way I see it.


----------



## Polednice

SiegendesLicht said:


> I don't claim to be an expert either on sex education or American culture wars. I am simply offering my opinion. As for figuring out the lifestyles choices, people do figure them out on the basis of some previous information, whether it comes from parents, teachers, peers, mass media, or somewhere else. The mind does not live in a vacuum. I just believe parents are the best source of such information, rather then schools.
> 
> It is long past midnight here, so with your permission I am leaving this thread until tomorrow :tiphat:


I think your approach to the question is riddled with a few too many false dichotomies - this or that; parents or teachers; sex ed or maths - when, in fact, all of these can co-exist quite happily.


----------



## CountessAdele

Sex in opera.









Discuss.:devil:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

CountessAdele said:


> Sex in opera.
> 
> View attachment 4200
> 
> 
> Discuss.:devil:


There was a lot of that in this chamber "cabaret opera" which I saw last year:


----------



## Cnote11

I'm curious to understand Argentina's view on sex. Have you seen their version of Strictly Come Dancing?


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> *This is the final word on this and I will have no more of this non-sense from someone who thinks you can't be knowledgeable on sex and geography apparently.  Absolutely ridiculous.*


Also sprach Cnote11. I had no clue that you wielded such power here that you could declare when a discussion must end. That is quite totalitarian of you.


----------



## Cnote11

Pretty sure the discussion ends when I decide not to post anymore. You may continue it but it'll sure be one-sided, wouldn't t?


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> Pretty sure the discussion ends when I decide not to post anymore. You may continue it but it'll sure be one-sided, wouldn't t?


Did you mean this to be funny? Because you know you have posted 7 times since you made that comment about it being the "final word."

And no, when you leave, that just means the temperature of the discussion drops a bit. I believe there are others participating in this discussion beyond just you - including the individual who actually started the thread. So I think it will continue just fine without you.


----------



## Cnote11

Yes, I posted it to be funny. Also, the direct link between the person and I ends obviously. Sometimes I think you have brain damage. I suppose that is how you became a conservative.


----------



## Guest

Ah - and so begins the ad hominems - the final resort of one who has run out of ideas.


----------



## Cnote11

No, they started on the last page. You obviously missed my attempt to fulfill Fsharpmajor's request. SiegendesLicht thanked for me it and I suggest you do the same.


----------



## Guest

Why, so you can pat yourself on the back for being so witty? Please. These debates rarely, if ever, lead to anybody changing their minds, so it is hard to gauge if anybody has "won," but generally the one who resorts to ad hominems first is in clear contention for "loser."


----------



## Cnote11

I wasn't aware that we were still debating. Pretty sure the last response on this topic towards you was me saying I wasn't debating you on it anymore. If I'm not mistaken, I haven't done so since. In fact, I pretty much proclaimed that we don't really have anything to debate over. You can pat yourself on the back for winning if you choose to do so, but I can't say I care either way. Also no, that was hardly wit. Oscar Wilde would be ashamed. If I ever want a pat down I can always go to Catholic church.


----------



## Guest

Does this mean you won't be inviting me to go fashion shopping with you and your fiancee?


----------



## Cnote11

No, it doesn't mean that. You're very much welcome to come along. She is actually a lapsed Catholic, so you two would have something to talk about surely. In fact, I think you'd get along really, really well with her parents.


----------



## Vaneyes

"Sex is like snow, you never know how many inches you're going to get, or how long it will last."

View attachment 4209


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> No, it doesn't mean that. You're very much welcome to come along. She is actually a lapsed Catholic, so you two would have something to talk about surely. In fact, I think you'd get along really, really well with her parents.


No thanks - I try to stay clear of papists (that is a joke, by the way) and fashion shopping (not a joke).


----------



## Chrythes

I sense the mechanics are coming!


----------



## Cnote11

DrMike said:


> No thanks - I try to stay clear of papists (that is a joke, by the way) and fashion shopping (not a joke).


Voila! Suit yourself (not a pun), but fashion is another artform! Not for everybody though, I understand. As for your joke, I do the same, but mine isn't a joke.


----------



## Guest

Chrythes said:


> I sense the mechanics are coming!


Will Mike be coming as well? Because all I need is a miracle.


----------



## Lukecash12

Cnote11 said:


> I must say that I find that to be a horrid idea. I think sex before marriage is actually extremely important. Sexual chemistry is really an important part of a relationship moving forward through life. A lot of marriages end up in rocky territory out of feeling unfulfilled in this area. I think it is important before you commit to a relationship for long-term that you evaluate every aspect of the relationship, and that includes the sexual areas as well. If the act hasn't taken place yet, then you can't evaluate it, leaving it as a complete unknown going into the marriage. It doesn't seem highly practical to me.


What really seems to complicate the matter of sex, is the different rituals and stages in courtship that different cultures use. When your parents have chosen your mate for you, and the two of you don't see each other much or at all before the marriage, having sex once you're married makes more sense.

Considerations like "chemistry" and "compatibility", while they have certainly been around, have not been deciding factors until fairly recently. In our heavily individualistic world, chemistry is a big deal. But when you live in a culture that focuses more on compartmentalizing everything, casting people in social and economic roles, and one that dampers individualism, chemistry fits in to the picture less. Great sex and great companionship are nice, but some lives and cultures are harsher than others, with low tech settings demanding a different outlook on life and love.


----------



## Cnote11

I do not condone such cultures


----------



## bassClef

Perversion is taboo, but sex in general terms is better described as _private_ - if it were taboo we'd not even feel open to share it with our partners, but that's the most natural and shameless thing in the world.


----------



## Lukecash12

Cnote11 said:


> I do not condone such cultures


In what sense? You don't condone making those choices under those conditions?

If I may go off on a tangent, without meaning any offense, I would suggest that people in the modern western world feel this way because they have a few of their own cultural symbols in the way:

Our culture says that everyone is essentially different, while theirs may say that everyone is essentially the same (although you can find a great variety of thoughts on this in the classical world). What makes us value people is their dynamic and unique natures. We perpetuate this image to the point of it being hyperbolic, where there is less of a set standard for maturity, where people share nothing and do nothing for each other when they have so much in common on a basic level.

Let's step into the Phillipines for a bit, eh? Let's say I live in a little shack and I'm minding my own business, working on my yard. My neighbor has nothing to do, so when he steps out of his shack he will probably come over to me immediately, and start digging and pulling and grooming the earth right alongside me. I'm not perturbed one bit. We aren't strangers. In fact, I happen to know everyone around me, for a few miles, like they were my family. In this hot and sweaty little strip of land, we breathe over each other's shoulders as if it couldn't be more natural. Sharing in the basic goodness of people, we look after the children of one another, crowd each other at every gathering, talk loudly and openly to just about anyone, and we pressure everyone else to do the same. We excel in some examples of maturity, and in some other examples we don't. Maybe we don't frequent a library or own many books, but I can tell you just about anything about my neighbor up the way, or my distant uncle. You crazy westerner, moving away from Mom and Dad just about as soon as you can, so picky and choosy with people, too.

And now I, the short little Filipino man, have moved into a middle class, residential area in Modesto, CA. If I'm lucky, a few people will greet me into the neighborhood. They won't make eye contact with me very much. I mow someone else's lawn, pull up weeds across the street, and people give me the vibe that I've just violated them. They'll wave at me if I get home from work about the same time as them, but they don't see any reason to come up to my porch and have a drink. I've just a few family members here, and the culture shock is hard on me. The way that people drive, the reserved nature of people, their wild lifestyles and non-traditional, even vagrant behavior has turned me off of the American dream a little bit. Apparently, my ethics are the way of the past. Some more traditional folk will approach me, and that's nice. But it's nothing like living in a small Catholic neighborhood up in the jungle back home.

What am I trying to get across here? Middle eastern cultures in particular, can look stifling and impersonal. However, they have a different definition of a person. A different type of comradery. A type of love that is just as compelling to them. I've met some very happy Indian couples, and I'm confident they were happy because I share in their culture and they are open with me. Their parents knew them well, because they had a strict but positive relationship with them, and their parents made great choices for them. While exploring each other's romantic side, they don't deal with roadblocks like being infatuated with a slob, someone unmotivated, someone who won't keep up with housechores, etc. They can live together, and live together well, while they explore each other romantically. We often have a laundry list of personality traits we look for, because we can't appreciate the basic goodness of people as well they can sometimes. We look for intangibles, while they live together and make them. While we go through the rat race of dating, setting standards and meeting standards, going through tension and loneliness, they start a family and take care of themselves in a harsher world.


----------



## Cnote11

I don't condone the idea of selling your daughter for a dowry. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take your little heartwarming story and change my mind about that. I'm sure there are couples that are happy from it, and I'm sure a lot that don't know any better, but regardless, it is a horrid practice. By the way, your depiction of the Philippine way of life and American way of life isn't universally true either. I don't exhibit any "wild behavior" nor am I a vagrant of any sort. I am fine with people breathing over my shoulder and I am perfectly fine with some random person helping me out. In fact, I help random people out all the time. Some people get freaked out by it, others don't. I'm not the only exception either. For the record, I've never in my life participated in any "dating rat race" and I've only dated two people, one for 5 years and another for 4 years, whom I am marrying. I've never had any tension or stress over dating or anything of the like. My ideas and way of life are nothing like what you depict and I'm still against arranged marriages. I can come up with anecdotal and even valid historical evidence of slaves contributing to a solid lifestyle and some actually taking the role quite well throughout history, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't uproot slavery.

By the way, the culture is more what dictates and not the practice. If one practices the same way westerners do when it comes to marriage, the results may be completely different just because of the culture. Dissolving arranged marriages would not necessarily lead to the way westerners date and act in relationships. It is the attitude of the culture that dictates the way we behave when it comes to interpersonal relationships.

If they wish to have their marriage arranged, so be it. It shouldn't be forced upon anyone.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I don't condone the idea of arranged marriages either but even less do I like the idea of trying out 20 different men/women for "sexual compatibility" before finding one who suits you sexually but still has a horrible character which makes you leave him/her a few months later. All the happy and long marriages I know were not founded on "sexual compatibility" but on mutual love and respect.


----------



## Polednice

Hyperbole and romanticism aside, one set of cultural practices treats marriage as a tool with women as a commodity, while another treats marriage as a statement to be entered into for emotional reasons. I know which I'd prefer, and - having lived with my family for 21 years - I would much prefer the difficult task of finding people who have personalities I like rather than searching desperately for the good in those who are in my life irrespective of choice.


----------



## Cnote11

SiegendesLicht said:


> I don't condone the idea of arranged marriages either but even less do I like the idea of trying out 20 different men/women for "sexual compatibility" before finding one who suits you sexually but still has a horrible character which makes you leave him/her a few months later. All the happy and long marriages I know were not founded on "sexual compatibility" but on mutual love and respect.


I think you misunderstood what I said. Naturally the sexual compatibility part should come after you find someone who you share mutual love and respect for their character and so forth. If the point of sexual compatibility in my post is to strengthen a long lasting bond, then why would one seek for that without the other building blocks in place? It would make no sense. Its merely a component of the relationship. A lot of people think I'm some sort of "liberal" when it comes to sex because of my views on sex, but when it comes down to it I've only had sex with the person I'm marrying. I find it an issue when people assume lifestyle choices based on ones values. I know traditionally one espouses what he lives, but this isn't a necessity, especially in a world of higher reasoning.


----------



## Cnote11

Polednice said:


> Hyperbole and romanticism aside, one set of cultural practices treats marriage as a tool with women as a commodity, while another treats marriage as a statement to be entered into for emotional reasons. I know which I'd prefer, and - having lived with my family for 21 years - I would much prefer the difficult task of finding people who have personalities I like rather than searching desperately for the good in those who are in my life irrespective of choice.


I too share your feelings on the idea of family, as I've understood it at least through your posts I've read in past threads. Most people I've encountered are highly shocked at this type of idea as if you just stole their baby and stabbed it to death in front of them.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> I too share your feelings on the idea of family, as I've understood it at least through your posts I've read in past threads. Most people I've encountered are highly shocked at this type of idea as if you just stole their baby and stabbed it to death in front of them.


Kin selection at work in full force!  I think my views are fostered largely by being a complete anomaly. I live with six immediate family members and have extremely little in common with any of them. Being at home is beyond inane, and I yearn for freedom.


----------



## Cnote11

You mean you're a westerner who is turning 22 but did not leave the house at first opportunity? Unfathomable! I don't have too much in common with my family and we have completely different outlooks on life, but it is what it is. We share somethings and do a little talking here and there, but that is about it. I tend to stay my separate way most of the time, especially from certain family members that make it feel like a taxing chore to be around them.


----------



## Philip

I'm an idiot.


----------



## Cnote11

Your post confuses me


----------



## violadude

Philip said:


> Hmm... personally i _do_ condone arranged marriage. I think it's retarded.


Did you perhaps mean condemn?


----------



## Cnote11

Either way, elegant post.


----------



## Philip

Cnote11 said:


> Either way, elegant post.


Oops, sorry. I actually thought "condoning" was _to condemn_. There's no word for condone in french.

I'm an idiot.


----------



## Cnote11

Oh Philip, you are so graceful and humorous :lol:


----------



## Lukecash12

Cnote11 said:


> I don't condone the idea of selling your daughter for a dowry. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take your little heartwarming story and change my mind about that. I'm sure there are couples that are happy from it, and I'm sure a lot that don't know any better, but regardless, it is a horrid practice. By the way, your depiction of the Philippine way of life and American way of life isn't universally true either. I don't exhibit any "wild behavior" nor am I a vagrant of any sort. I am fine with people breathing over my shoulder and I am perfectly fine with some random person helping me out. In fact, I help random people out all the time. Some people get freaked out by it, others don't. I'm not the only exception either. For the record, I've never in my life participated in any "dating rat race" and I've only dated two people, one for 5 years and another for 4 years, whom I am marrying. I've never had any tension or stress over dating or anything of the like. My ideas and way of life are nothing like what you depict and I'm still against arranged marriages. I can come up with anecdotal and even valid historical evidence of slaves contributing to a solid lifestyle and some actually taking the role quite well throughout history, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't uproot slavery.
> 
> By the way, the culture is more what dictates and not the practice. If one practices the same way westerners do when it comes to marriage, the results may be completely different just because of the culture. Dissolving arranged marriages would not necessarily lead to the way westerners date and act in relationships. It is the attitude of the culture that dictates the way we behave when it comes to interpersonal relationships.
> 
> If they wish to have their marriage arranged, so be it. It shouldn't be forced upon anyone.


1. Women aren't "sold" in most Middle Eastern cultures. I'm sorry, but that's more than a little ethnocentric of a statement. In a sense more real than we typically know in the west, marrying into a family means you are bound up with them on a variety of levels. Marrying into them means you share in responsibility for them, and depending on who you are you may very well live with them. The dowry is the price for tying yourself up with a new family, an agreement that they don't like to enter into unless you are of comparable enough means to them. The bachelors are comfortable with this, because they love their family and want a mutually beneficial arrangement.

You see, in Middle Eastern cultures, where you may very well live in third world conditions (depending on the country), you count your wealth in people. We enjoy seemingly limitless goods, but they live in what anthropologists call a limited goods society. When they lose a person, they need compensation in order to figure out their new family situation. You may not know this in particular, either: While the father of the household has their honor to protect, of which he is the symbol, and he is burdened and privileged with the final word on such crucial matters, the brothers of the bride have a deeply personal relationship with their sister, comparable to the emotional intimacy we know in our western marriages, and the brothers are often bereaved at the loss of their sister.

2. Your experience with dating is most likely either a reflection of the cultures you've been exposed to, or luck on your part. Cultural anthropology does not operate off of a single person's anecdotes. It is more demographic than that.

3. My depiction of Filipino and American life wasn't meant to be universally true. Few cultural observations are. I was referring to a specific area and a specific type of neighborhood, a type of neighborhood that is very real. There are demographics who have that very experience.

4. The issue is that arranged marriage isn't slavery, that infidelity and other sexual issues can be valid problems for people living under different circumstances than us. Most who have an arranged marriage don't say they are being forced into it. They have a very different idea of individuality than us, and are invested in the family and it's needs. Their parent's decisions are trusted, and they all benefit off of the new relationships involved. Very unlike the typical picture out west, marriage is essential to Middle Eastern life in this sense: it is the cornerstone of good relations and prosperity, in their model of life. The more you learn about it, the more you appreciate that, while seeing how integral this one relationship is to their family relationships, family diplomacy, and family economics.

5. My story wasn't meant to be heartwarming. I was presenting a point using an analogical medium. You probably don't deal with the pressures that they deal with, and I would ask you what right you have to disparage their way of life with just a passing knowledge. We may balk at how they define an individual, and we may balk at some of the restrictions involved in their life, but depending on the case they happen to be exemplars in a lot of other areas because of their model of life and attitudes.


----------



## Cnote11

I'm aware of all that you stated. I am a Social Psychologist who was minoring in Middle Eastern culture and history. I think the "ignorance of the culture" you are projecting on me is also true for your view of this society. I don't think you really have a thorough grasp on the idea of marriage in the west either, as it has certain motivations and expectations as well, and isn't all about individuality and chemistry. Also, I don't care if they don't think they're being forced into it, because it is happening isn't it?


----------



## Lukecash12

Cnote11 said:


> I'm aware of all that you stated. I am a Social Psychologist who was minoring in Middle Eastern culture and history. I think the "ignorance of the culture" you are projecting on me is also true for your view of this society. I don't think you really have a thorough grasp on the idea of marriage in the west either, as it has certain motivations and expectations as well, and isn't all about individuality and chemistry. Also, I don't care if they don't think they're being forced into it, because it is happening isn't it?


1. Seeing as you are aware, according to you, I wonder how you qualify ethnocentric statements like that, statements that essentially tell us that dowries are just an objectifying transaction.

2. I used language like "probably", and "would", to refer to your knowledge of Middle Eastern culture. You have yet to display any methodology in the way you address the subject. Moreover, I have no interest in a back and forth that essentially has to do with whoever is ignorant of the issue. Nothing has been projected upon you, other than demonstrative tangents gone down because of what was apparent in your writing (and I mean "apparent" in the proper sense, not the explicit sense in which people tend to think of it).

3. You continue to draw undue inferences, by saying things such as this: "I don't think you really have a thorough grasp on the idea of marriage in the west either, as it has certain motivations and expectations as well, and isn't all about individuality and chemistry." I didn't state that explicitly, and for you to take that meaning implicitly is a mistake as to the nature of my arguments, and the methodology I use.

4. You've not demonstrated the affect of this statement: "Also, I don't care if they don't think they're being forced into it, because it is happening isn't it?" Whatever your opinion is ("care" or "don't care") demonstrates nothing about the merits of the system, or the necessity of it. You've made a value judgement that has yet to be qualified, essentially an ethnocentric judgement. What is it about the fact that it is happening, that makes it wrong? Does it objectify people? You've not made yourself clear here, and you should know well enough how they define an individual, and one's own liberties, in such societies.

If you are a Social Psychologist, then let's see some methodology, some demonstration, some point-counterpoint, maybe some clearer inferences whilst communicating. Not to be hostile, of course. I simply invite you to do what you apparently can do.


----------



## Cnote11

I have no use to. There is a reason why my post was so brief. I actually don't care to discuss this and have far more important things to do. My "methodology" that the type of marriages I was referring to when my post was originally typed were those that were arranged in a manner that allowed no choice of spouse. This is forced, and when something has "no choice" it is forced. That is my reasoning right there in a nutshell. How do you figure that forced marriages are not forced?

FYI luke, saying stuff like "You crazy westerner, moving away from Mom and Dad just about as soon as you can, so picky and choosy with people, too" is hardly you saying "usually". You were were making large generalizations. Just face up to it. I also don't want to hear about what methodology I'm using to say thing like "I don't think you have a firm understanding of western marriages", when you repeatedly tell me I don't have grasp of eastern marriages without any firm "methodology" yourself. I didn't care to reply to your last post, hence the brief post lacking any real thing worth debating, and I don't wish to concern myself with this anymore either. 

The whole point of my post was NOBODY SHOULD BE FORCED TO MARRY ANYBODY THEY DON'T WANT TO. How anybody can argue against that is beyond me.


----------



## Lukecash12

Cnote11 said:


> I have no use to. There is a reason why my post was so brief. I actually don't care to discuss this and have far more important things to do. My "methodology" that the type of marriages I was referring to when my post was originally typed were those that were arranged in a manner that allowed no choice of spouse. This is forced, and when something has "no choice" it is forced. That is my reasoning right there in a nutshell. How do you figure that forced marriages are not forced?
> 
> FYI luke, saying stuff like "You crazy westerner, moving away from Mom and Dad just about as soon as you can, so picky and choosy with people, too" is hardly you saying "usually". You were were making large generalizations. Just face up to it. I also don't want to hear about what methodology I'm using to say thing like "I don't think you have a firm understanding of western marriages", when you repeatedly tell me I don't have grasp of eastern marriages without any firm "methodology" yourself. I didn't care to reply to your last post, hence the brief post lacking any real thing worth debating, and I don't wish to concern myself with this anymore either.
> 
> The whole point of my post was NOBODY SHOULD BE FORCED TO MARRY ANYBODY THEY DON'T WANT TO. How anybody can argue against that is beyond me.


1. Of course you don't. Why condescend to discuss this with me, eh? Yet here you are. It appears our friend the doc was right.

2. In like manner, while merely tongue in cheek, I shall condescend to you: "For your information", that was an analogous story. Of course it was hyperbolic, and not necessarily representative of every American demographic. How's that sound, monsieur? Maybe it sounds sour in your ears, but then again maybe you are as agreeable as a skin rash. Who knows? "Just face up to it", brohah.

3. I don't figure that forced marriages aren't forced. Nor do I philosophically align with such decisions. However, neither do I disparage them or mistake their nature.

4. Yes, I can see what the whole point of your post was, and moreover I happen to have the necessary grasp of the English language and the technicalities of this discussion, in order to get that without reading or resorting to type in CAPS. I'd appreciate it if you used emphatic vocabulary, rather than bugging out a poor man's eyes.

5. How ironic it is, that I use such tentative and well chosen language, in order to express what I do not know about your reasoning, the explicit contents of your posts, and the entirety of your position, all the while that you demonstratively project such as I have avoided, upon me.


----------



## science

I'm going to convert to Christianity so that I can write things like that without getting warnings. 

Sex probably became taboo around the time that we started wearing clothing. That might be an easier thing to answer.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> I'm going to convert to Christianity so that I can write things like that without getting warnings.
> 
> Sex probably became taboo around the time that we started wearing clothing. That might be an easier thing to answer.


Nothing wrong with a little ribald piece of prose, is there? But I'm not complaining. This would count as the oddest conversion I've caused.

Who says I didn't get a warning? Well, I didn't. There seems to be a ratio here, of silliness to insult, that deflates the provocation just enough for us all to not take it too seriously. I'll get back to you when I've figured out the ratio, and maybe you won't have to be a Christian to insult people. Surely, I'll have some interesting stories of trial and error to share.

But back on topic:

Not to be tooting my horn, but I'd say that I basically pointed out when sex became taboo. Sex becoming taboo seems to be one of the basic differences between most nomadic groups, and just about all settled groups.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> Who says I didn't get a warning? Well, I didn't.


Of course not.

I can't discuss it further, because I don't want to risk getting banned, because I want to keep the "talkclassical project" going and keep participating in it.

You win, as you always will on this site.


----------



## starthrower

A more important question is why is sex still taboo in the 21st century? Perhaps we humans aren't the marvelously enlightened creatures we fancy ourselves to be?

Shall we take ourselves seriously? Shall we talk about it all night long? Shall we think we are so evolved? Will we be depressed If were wrong? - Frank Zappa


----------



## science

My conversion is underway. I will attend Paschal services tomorrow night. Hopefully I'll get a little cred with the mods, and eventually even full equality with my fellow Christians here. I'm not sure that my religion of choice, Eastern Orthodoxy, is good enough, but it is as well as I can do.


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> A childishly simplistic question for a huge topic, but either share your theories or point me to good ones about why something so fundamental and pleasurable became regarded as taboo and unclean, and when it happened in different societies.


Dunno if this has been mentioned. A bit outdated & a lot of Freud's theories have been kind of debunked, but probably no harm to read this, given the topic of this thread.

http://www.amazon.com/Totem-Taboo-S...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334302369&sr=1-1

IMO, "it" is not exactly taboo, not today. Eg. with strangers on public transport talking on mobile phones about many areas of their private lives, "sharing" it with all and sundry - which I've had enough of, a gutful of - I think there's little territory left that's private for many people. Get your private life out of my face I feel like saying. Now that in this country they're trialling silent carriages - no mobiles allowed to be used on those - HOORAY!!!


----------



## starthrower

Taboo encompasses more than the tactlessness and conspicuous behavior of people in the internet age. That's a whole other topic. There is still a whole world of people out there who believe it's a sin to follow one's own natural curiosities in the area of sex. And children continue to be brainwashed with religious dogma in this area.


----------



## science

starthrower said:


> Taboo encompasses more than the tactlessness and conspicuous behavior of people in the internet age. That's a whole other topic. There is still a whole world of people out there who believe it's a sin to follow one's own natural curiosities in the area of sex. And children continue to be brainwashed with religious dogma in this area.


Yes, it still happens, but the Christian right has lost or is losing the culture war on almost every front. Birth control is now accepted almost universally; racists stay in the closet more than homosexuals (contrast that to 1962); miniskirts or bobbed hair cuts are no longer controversial; the sexual jokes on today's prime-time TV were unthinkable just 20 years ago, let alone 40 or 60 years ago. Women are closer to equality with men than they've been in probably thousands of years. Pornography has never been more accessible. We discuss anything from homosexuality to casual sex to fetishes and whatever with more freedom than we have in at least hundreds of years. It's not only sexual issues of course: Young-earth creationism has never been taken less seriously. And now a general sense of class-consciousness is even coming back.

A lot of the anger you see on the populist-right is the realization that they've lost. Often even their own grandkids aren't on their side. I don't think they've really won any battles since Joe McCarthy went down, but out of all these issues, the front of the culture war that they've lost most completely must be sexuality. We've gone from banning _The Catcher in the Rye_ to hardly noticing something like "My Neck, My Back."

We've basically won this battle. We still have a ways to go with homosexuality being accepted, but the progress over the past 20 years has been remarkable.


----------



## starthrower

I think equality and access to education for women around the world is the key. Hopefully all of the theocratic regimes eventually will be overthrown (by their own people, and not the US military) and things will continue to progress. 

There is still deep cultural conditioning that apart from religion effects attitudes and behavior even among educated people. There was a case in Buffalo, NY recently of an Indian couple who were known in the community due to their work in local TV news. The husband brutally murdered and decapitated his wife for infidelity.


----------



## Mesa

So, when's the TC orgy taking place? I'll bring the large vibrating egg and a copy of The Thieving Magpie.


----------



## science

I'll DJ.

(I'm a married man.)


----------



## Cnote11

I'm surprised Lukecrash actually took the time to write all of that. I hope he knows I didn't read a single word of it. I'm sure there is something in there like "you say you aren't going to discuss this with me but you are here doing so". I was merely letting you know that I hadn't the care to carry on the conversation. I'm quite the busy man and don't really care to thoroughly debate anything at the moment with anybody. Scrolling past I see he wrote me a poem. That is awfully nice of him.

Edit: From what I gather it was a post full of nothing but insults and zero content. I'm happy I made the decision that it wasn't worth my limited time I currently have.


----------



## Mesa

science said:


> I'll DJ.


I'd love to go in a bar, just once, and see a group of drunk girls offering to flash the DJ in exchange for him playing Ode to Joy or Canon in D.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Cnote11 said:


> The whole point of my post was NOBODY SHOULD BE FORCED TO MARRY ANYBODY THEY DON'T WANT TO. How anybody can argue against that is beyond me.


However one can argue for the opposite: sometimes people should be forced to NOT marry somebody they do want to.


----------



## Cnote11

SiegendesLicht said:


> However one can argue for the opposite: sometimes people should be forced to NOT marry somebody they do want to.


Please explain.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I mean the situations when it is obvious to the people around the person in question (parents, for example), that her chosen man is a drunk/petty criminal/totally irresponsible and cannot provide for the family/simply a jerk. The person's own eyes however, are so blinded by love that she prefers not to notice all these inadequacies. Holding the person back in any way possible is not the worst solution compared to ruining her life. And I am writing "her" because it is the fairer sex that finds itself in situations like these more often.


----------



## Cnote11

I think it is a safer idea to raise your daughter with a greater idea and awareness of this sort of stuff and with the ability to properly analyze her relationships. Also, a daughter who would sit down and listen to what you have to say and seriously think about your reasons why she shouldn't marry the man. It seems like a much better idea than "I forbid you to marry this man by force".


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Cnote11 said:


> I think it is a safer idea to raise your daughter with a greater idea and awareness of this sort of stuff and with the ability to properly analyze her relationships. Also, a daughter who would sit down and listen to what you have to say and seriously think about your reasons why she shouldn't marry the man. It seems like a much better idea than "I forbid you to marry this man by force".


Sure. Definitely. Absolutely. The "I forbid you to marry this man" is the very extreme case, I sure hope it never comes to that in the life of my family or that of my friends.


----------



## science

Mesa said:


> I'd love to go in a bar, just once, and see a group of drunk girls offering to flash the DJ in exchange for him playing Ode to Joy or Canon in D.


That would be funny, because the DJ would be like, "Odejoi? Cannon N.D.? I never heard of those guys. They Jamaican?"


----------



## Ellyll

Returning to the original question, if you don't mind.

First off, I am not an anthropologist either, these are just my observations.



Lukecash12 said:


> Well, gentleman, there is a prominent theory about this from archaeological anthropologists who work in tandem with classical archaeologists on sites like Jericho and Catal Huyuk. Basically, chastity and other sexual taboos originally had to do with lineage. When the earliest settlements came about, such as Jericho and Catal Huyuk, one's property had to be protected, in that there could be confusion of lineage. If there was a confusion about lineage, then there would be a confusion about what the child was entitled to, for one. Also, there would be a confusion as to levels of responsibility over the child, and what sort of family relationship would be had with the other candidate(s).
> 
> The assumption is, that because invention, stratification, and personal property, became stronger concepts when the earliest settlements were made, infidelity began to be a problem for these ideals.


While the property issue is a legitimate one at a social level, I would have to say if you think infidelity only became a problem because of that, then you have never met a jealous woman. =)



Kopachris said:


> Disclaimer: I am not an anthropologist.
> 
> If I had to guess, I would say sex became taboo when Hebrew culture started. Ancient pagan cultures regarded sex as something sacred and to celebrated. The Hebrew, in their efforts to create a culture that was contrary to that of their oppressors, made the public celebration of sex taboo. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity integrated that same taboo during their formation.


There is a major flaw in this theory. Circumspection in sex also exists (and existed) in Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and many other cultures.

Even in Pagan Rome most of the orgies were held behind closed doors, and the Vestal Virgins were taking vows of chastity.



Cnote11 said:


> Eating is shameful under many doctrines actually. Not the act of eating itself but the desire of wanting more to eat than needed for sustenance. In the same way, sex is seen as a sort of untamed passion, which were looked up negatively in many cultures. We can turn to Judaism and see the strong effect it continues to have on our world, in the evolution towards Christianity and Islam, from the way we look at food to law and morality. This of course wasn't the only place we've seen such things. In Ancient Greece, although it was fine for males, it wasn't proper to depict a female nude, although they didn't shy away from a wet drapery effect which was as much sensuous, if not more so, but this had a lot to do with women's role in society and it eventually became looser as we moved into the Hellenistic period. Although there are some very graphic depictions during the Archaic period. Shaming people's sexuality can be looked at as an effective way of control in many aspects as well. The idea of sex has also shifted with the economy. We look now we can see the "nuclear family" which we didn't have in the old days. It is now more economical to have such a family consisting of father, daughter, daughter, son. We see a shift in sexual norms depending on these type of factors.


And now we get to the commonly propped up idea that shame in the act of sex is a learned reaction. This just simply isn't true as far as I can tell, shame in sexual matters is the natural norm among children, and actually has to be unlearned with time.

Look at how predators take advantage of this fact to shame victims *who are not even old enough to truly understand religion or social responsibilities* into remaining silent.

What is the first lesson in sexual education children are given? If someone touches you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable you MUST tell a trusted adult, even if you feel shameful in doing so.

It seems to me that shame and taboo in sex is linked to our natural evolutionary tendencies as humans towards either monogamous family or male dominant harem social systems.

Both of these systems exist in various forms among the great apes and other primates, as well as other animals in general.

Nuclear families are not unique to humans. Even many birds exhibit this behavior, and their split from us evolutionarily is hundreds of millions of years old.

You can say that it's unfair that females who sleep around get treated differently than males, but as far as I can tell that prejudice is FAR older than the human race itself. (unless you do not believe in evolution.)

Anyway, just my 2 cents.


----------



## Cnote11

If you read my post you can see that the idea of a nuclear family was a 20th century phenomenon. It is not inherent in humans. Also, how do you explain the large group of children who do not grow up feeling any shame around sex and sexuality? I'm not convinced that there is this shame amongst children. Most young children will begin exploring themselves or run around in the nude and feel no shame about it. I don't think much of what you said holds up historically. Early humans did not have a tendency to be monogamous. By saying either male dominated or monogamous society you are basically taking the only two trends in human history and saying "one of the two". It covers you and your argument from any perspective. Perhaps you're right on it, but that isn't convincing whatsoever without actual evidence.


----------



## Ellyll

Cnote11 said:


> If you read my post you can see that the idea of a nuclear family was a 20th century phenomenon. It is not inherent in humans. Also, how do you explain the large group of children who do not grow up feeling any shame around sex and sexuality? I'm not convinced that there is this shame amongst children. Most young children will begin exploring themselves or run around in the nude and feel no shame about it. I don't think much of what you said holds up historically. Early humans did not have a tendency to be monogamous. By saying either male dominated or monogamous society you are basically taking the only two trends in human history and saying "one of the two". It covers you and your argument from any perspective. Perhaps you're right on it, but that isn't convincing whatsoever without actual evidence.


My point was that when they are not monogamous it tends towards male dominant (harem). This is the same as is seen with our closest living relatives, chimps and gorillas. It is an evolutionary trait, as far as I can tell.

I do not recall saying that monogamy was historically the (human) norm, but that when it was not it was predominantly the male dominant system.

Also, according to what I have been abel to figure out, monogamous family groups are the common pattern for gibbons, siamangs, titi monkeys, indris, tarsiers, and some others. (primates)



> Also, how do you explain the large group of children who do not grow up feeling any shame around sex and sexuality?


I am pointing out that shame seems to be a natural result of sexual abuse, sans any religious connotations.

This is not talking about well adjusted children exploring themselves on their own time.

http://cmx.sagepub.com/content/10/4/337.full.pdf

Shame after rape, regardless of religion, seems to be the norm also http://www.pandys.org/escapinghades
/guiltshame.html

My overall point is still this: Shame, jealousy, and male dominance seem to me to be a result of evolutionary forces, not religion. Religion takes advantage of these, and reinforces them, to control people.

Once again, just my 2 cents, but I really think these trends predate humans.


----------



## Cnote11

Ah, I see what you are saying now. My original wasn't positing that religion is the cause of it, merely a large catalyst to a greater prominence.


----------



## Cnote11

By the way, welcome to the forum. I enjoy your contribution here.


----------



## Ellyll

Cnote11 said:


> By the way, welcome to the forum. I enjoy your contribution here.


Thank you, I am glad I found it. It is nice to meet people willing to debate without being viscous.

Religion is definitely a catalyst, but I think if you look at successful manipulators you will see that their success is often derived form leveraging pre-existing human emotions. (At least that is what I have noticed.)

Shame, fear, jealousy, love, hatred and lust all pre-date religion. They are all powerful, visceral, and in many ways related to sex and societal makeup, as far as I can tell.

We talk of animal instincts, without realizing they are "feelings" that control the animal, the same ones we have, our instincts for breeding, raising our young, and protecting the resources necessary for that.

At least that is the idea I have been working on.


----------



## Ellyll

I honestly think farming has as much to do with monogamy as religion, possibly more.

In a primarily gathering society it is evolutionarily beneficial to have few males. As long as you have enough for protection and breeding, any more is just wasted food. Extra males usually get rid of each other through fighting (war). This fact still exists. Many soldiers will tell you that killing someone in the field will actually arouse them. It is wired in.

Farming, though, encourages a higher male to female ratio, as strength that is normally used for breaking backs is instead required form breaking soil.. Over, and over, and over again.

Same idea with hunting, fishing, and shepherding. Our society changed to need more males to prosper and so those who became more monogamous during these times survived to breed more, as they had more per capita food, esp. in drought years, with the advent of pottery to add to grain farming, and meat curing. (All of which requires labor, and if you want to keep up on birthing, preferably by non child rearing labors, i.e men)

The evolutionary triggers are still there, though, for aggressive male (self destructive) behavior.  They run deep. 

At least that is what I have come to believe.


----------



## Cnote11

Well, there is a reason that religion grew out of such communities. They do reflect the values of a community prior to the invention of the certain religion they practiced. So saying that, of course the values and ideas would predate religion. It is a necessity that they do.


----------



## violadude

mmmmm Sex! I was thinking about sex just the other day, but then I remembered how taboo and sinful it was so I prayed to the Lord Jesus Christ to deliver me from those satanic thoughts! Amen!


----------



## Mesa

I've done harrowing, utterly despicable things in the name of sex, and plan to do them all again but with more enthusiasm and larger electric eels.


----------



## violadude

Mesa said:


> I've done harrowing, utterly despicable things in the name of sex, and plan to do them all again but with more enthusiasm and larger electric eels.


Epic post.


----------



## starthrower

Sex isn't dirty, it's just wet and gooey!


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> Sex isn't dirty, it's just wet and gooey!


Those are my favorite aspects of it.


----------



## Lukecash12

I can see that you tried to get a rise out of me there, Cnote. Well, you succeeded in raising one of my eyebrows. First, by being arrogant, and second by trying to sound slick. This indicates yet again that while you condescend to the people you have these discussions with, and tell them you are done with their **, that you continue to follow their posts anyways. Maybe this isn't the case.

But of course, I'm just completely below you, because we couldn't establish something after just a few posts back and forth. How striking of a pattern it is, that when such silliness makes it's way here, that it is totally premature.


----------



## science

Ellyll said:


> I honestly think farming has as much to do with monogamy as religion, possibly more.
> 
> In a primarily gathering society it is evolutionarily beneficial to have few males. As long as you have enough for protection and breeding, any more is just wasted food. Extra males usually get rid of each other through fighting (war). This fact still exists. Many soldiers will tell you that killing someone in the field will actually arouse them. It is wired in.
> 
> Farming, though, encourages a higher male to female ratio, as strength that is normally used for breaking backs is instead required form breaking soil.. Over, and over, and over again.
> 
> Same idea with hunting, fishing, and shepherding. Our society changed to need more males to prosper and so those who became more monogamous during these times survived to breed more, as they had more per capita food, esp. in drought years, with the advent of pottery to add to grain farming, and meat curing. (All of which requires labor, and if you want to keep up on birthing, preferably by non child rearing labors, i.e men)
> 
> The evolutionary triggers are still there, though, for aggressive male (self destructive) behavior. They run deep.
> 
> At least that is what I have come to believe.


I don't know that there has ever been a surplus of females, but in an agricultural state one of the main things that happens is that men higher up in the hierarchy take extra women from lower down. Sexual fertility / pleasure is a resource controlled like any other by the rulers, so you get rulers with 2000 fertile women in their harem, and so on at lower levels of the hierarchy, and one of the main ways to compensate is to have a war in which enough males are killed to make up the difference.

A phenomenal, must-read book if you're interested in this kind of thing is Betzig's _Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History_. I think it's one of the most important books ever written, one of the most honest and accurate looks at social-structure.


----------



## Badinerie

Does it have pictures?


----------



## Ellyll

science said:


> I don't know that there has ever been a surplus of females, but in an agricultural state one of the main things that happens is that men higher up in the hierarchy take extra women from lower down. Sexual fertility / pleasure is a resource controlled like any other by the rulers, so you get rulers with 2000 fertile women in their harem, and so on at lower levels of the hierarchy, and one of the main ways to compensate is to have a war in which enough males are killed to make up the difference.
> 
> A phenomenal, must-read book if you're interested in this kind of thing is Betzig's _Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History_. I think it's one of the most important books ever written, one of the most honest and accurate looks at social-structure.


Good, point, and I will give that book a look.

One thing to consider, though, is this... In harem based animal populations a surplus of females can come about through the following 2 mechanisms, which I believe are commonly seen, esp. in the world of primates.

1. Forced exile from the extended group at puberty, which is a high risk / high reward situation where a young male is either going to stake new ground for the species, take over the breeding rights to a competing genetic pool of the same species in an adjacent territory, or, more often, die trying.

2. Self destructive male behavior, much of which is in itself related to 1. War, hunting accidents, cliff jumping, wandering into the wrong part of the lion filled forest, playing with snakes to see what happens, etc.

These stupid, reckless, brave, and intrepid things we do seems to me to be natural selections way of getting rid of the surplus.

Now we find ourselves living in a society where that is no longer necessary, but still having all the self destructive instincts.


----------



## sheffmark

Sex became taboo at the same time as the marriage vows were uttered!


----------



## Polednice

Excluding religion from the possible sources of shame in sex does not lead us to the conclusion that shame is evolutionarily hard-wired. The first paper you linked to, Ellyll, didn't so much concern itself with cross-cultural and cross-religious shame as it did with the prolonged nature of shame after sexual abuse and the importance of treatment - that's not directly relevant to the question at hand.

It also does us no good to compare ourselves with other primate species, as you can find evidence of all kinds of sexual systems - there are competitive male-dominant ones, there are pair-bonding species, there are matriarchies, and you can even change sexual behaviours by affecting the primates' environment. Humans fall somewhere in the middle of all this, but because human sexual culture is so complicated, it is too simplistic to claim that we are hard-wired for any one of these set-ups. We are fully capable of all of them depending on our circumstances, and simply learn the system we're brought up in. Today, that includes certain taboos and shame, but its prevalence is no more evidence of it being hard-wired than is equal temperament.



Ellyll said:


> In a primarily gathering society it is evolutionarily beneficial to have few males. As long as you have enough for protection and breeding, any more is just wasted food. Extra males usually get rid of each other through fighting (war). This fact still exists. Many soldiers will tell you that killing someone in the field will actually arouse them. It is wired in.


This statement provides me an example to point out that I think you're making evolutionary conclusions much too quickly with little supporting evidence. I think evolutionary explanations are of tremendous importance, but they have to be handled correctly. In this instance, I could retort that many males fighting in war end up with severe PTSD; I do not conclude from that that we are hard-wired to be disturbed by aggression.


----------



## Cnote11

Lukecash12 said:


> I can see that you tried to get a rise out of me there, Cnote. Well, you succeeded in raising one of my eyebrows. First, by being arrogant, and second by trying to sound slick. This indicates yet again that while you condescend to the people you have these discussions with, and tell them you are done with their **, that you continue to follow their posts anyways. Maybe this isn't the case.
> 
> But of course, I'm just completely below you, because we couldn't establish something after just a few posts back and forth. How striking of a pattern it is, that when such silliness makes it's way here, that it is totally premature.


What are you even talking about? I hope you know I had respect for you and I had nothing personally against you. I find it bizarre that people don't understand when I say I'm done taking about the topic that it doesn't mean that I refuse to acknowledge their existence anymore. Quite positive you have a misconception of my motives. As I stated, I was purely too busy to carry on conversations _with anyone_. I wasn't going to continue to debate something when I only had five minutes to post a response. It doesn't exactly lead to a productive debate. I have studies for 10 hours a day, not to mention my actual work on top of my work from school. It isn't a condescending thing Luke, I just honestly do not have enough time, which also leads to a lack of care.


----------



## Lukecash12

Cnote11 said:


> What are you even talking about? I hope you know I had respect for you and I had nothing personally against you. I find it bizarre that people don't understand when I say I'm done taking about the topic that it doesn't mean that I refuse to acknowledge their existence anymore. Quite positive you have a misconception of my motives. As I stated, I was purely too busy to carry on conversations _with anyone_. I wasn't going to continue to debate something when I only had five minutes to post a response. It doesn't exactly lead to a productive debate. I have studies for 10 hours a day, not to mention my actual work on top of my work from school. It isn't a condescending thing Luke, I just honestly do not have enough time, which also leads to a lack of care.


Sorry about that, I seriously misinterpreted you. I'm used to people here condescending to me, when we can't communicate clearly after just a few posts back and forth. It's why I don't do discussions like this in the community forum any more.


----------



## Cnote11

I respect your wanting to be thorough in your approach. I have since I've come here and I've enjoyed the posts you have set forth. We'll in the end have to agree to disagree on this issue, or perhaps pick it up at a later date. I cannot devote the time to give you the same thoroughness you often afford. I don't like to debate on things unless I can otherwise, because I feel then it becomes highly petty and non-productive. To me, there isn't a point to such debates. I respect the sanctity of debate enough to bow out when I cannot do so, especially if the other person is attempting to on their behalf. I like to try to keep it civil around here. I don't have anything against anybody personally and I think I've only ran across one person I'd consider outright rude...

It is a shame that lately people have been driven away from this forum due to assumptions over words. I'm happy to reconcile over such instances. Only then can you actually move productive debate forward.


----------



## Lukecash12

Cnote11 said:


> I respect your wanting to be thorough in your approach. I have since I've come here and I've enjoyed the posts you have set forth. We'll in the end have to agree to disagree on this issue, or perhaps pick it up at a later date. I cannot devote the time to give you the same thoroughness you often afford. I don't like to debate on things unless I can otherwise, because I feel then it becomes highly petty and non-productive. To me, there isn't a point to such debates. I respect the sanctity of debate enough to bow out when I cannot do so, especially if the other person is attempting to on their behalf. I like to try to keep it civil around here. I don't have anything against anybody personally and I think I've only ran across one person I'd consider outright rude...
> 
> It is a shame that lately people have been driven away from this forum due to assumptions over words. I'm happy to reconcile over such instances. Only then can you actually move productive debate forward.


Why, thank you, monsieur.


----------



## Cnote11

That is one hell of an olive branch, right there. I sense this could get real confusing.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Jesus! I never would have expected the great and venerable Luke to follow along with our quirky meme!

yes, i will reference it as many times as i want


----------



## Cnote11

It isn't my quirky meme, that is for sure. ComposerofAvantGarde only has himself to blame for making a big deal out of me using it.


----------



## Lukecash12

Dodecaplex said:


> Jesus! I never would have expected the great and venerable Luke to follow along with our quirky meme!
> 
> yes, i will reference it as many times as i want


Venerable? Butter me up all you want, but don't tell me I didn't warn you about all the hair.

Now there's a good question, since I've happened upon this strange train of thought: When did specific things about people, or certain sexual acts become taboo? For example, what is the deal with these new generations not liking hairy men?

(by the way, caught you: "yes, i will reference it as many times as i want". COLOR="#FFFFFF" Very interesting)


----------



## Cnote11

I forget that Dodie feels the need to do everything uncover. I must start checking his posts more often... I feel like I'll never learn.


----------



## science

I don't believe in taboo.


----------



## violadude

Actually, the tabooness of sex is something that is affecting my life at this very moment. I am considering writing a song cycle that explores deep inner feels of the human psyche, with sexual attraction being one of them. I want to make these songs as realistic and as graphic as possible. However, I am wondering if it might get me in trouble with my school...maybe some parent who is a patron of the school will go to the concert that my song cycle will eventually be on and be so horrified that they renounce their patronage. :devil:

Edit: yes, despite the goofy devil smiley, it is really something I am quite conflicted on. I am just in that kind of mood right now. :lol:


----------



## Meaghan

violadude said:


> Actually, the tabooness of sex is something that is effecting my life at this very moment. I am considering writing a song cycle that explores deep inner feels of the human psyche, with sexual attraction being one of them. I want to make these songs as realistic and as graphic as possible. However, I am wondering if it might get me in trouble with my school...maybe some parent who is a patron of the school will go to the concert that my song cycle will eventually be on and be so horrified that they renounce their patronage. :devil:
> 
> Edit: yes, despite the goofy devil smiley, it is really something I am quite conflicted on. I am just in that kind of mood right now. :lol:


It would be a gutsy move, and if it did generate controversy - well, controversy is productive. It gets people thinking about _why_ something bothers them. You might start a valuable conversation.


----------



## Cnote11

I say go for it, violadude. Art should be free to represent the human experience. Other people be damned! Do not curb your artistic expression because other people might get offended by something harmless.


----------



## Guest

I agree that art should be free to represent the human experience. However, that does not mean that others should support or patronize your art. So there is a balancing act to be done. The same goes for science - I am free to investigate whatever I want, but if I want someone else to fund what I want to investigate, I need to balance my interests with what is fundable. So with art, if you feel passionately about it, I say go for it - but don't expect that others should necessarily support you in your action.


----------



## Cnote11

They don't have to, of course, but don't compromise for such people.

_I starve dogs for art_


----------



## AmateurComposer

science said:


> I don't believe in taboo.


So much for science! When I mentioned Dirac's Delta function to a mathematician, he responded: "Delta function is a taboo to mathematicians." So much for science!


----------



## brianwalker

When did cheating become a taboo?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

brianwalker said:


> When did cheating become a taboo?


IS cheating taboo? Since when?


----------



## Cnote11

Since when were taboos cheating?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Actually, the tabooness of sex is something that is affecting my life at this very moment. I am considering writing a song cycle that explores deep inner feels of the human psyche, with sexual attraction being one of them. I want to make these songs as realistic and as graphic as possible. However, I am wondering if it might get me in trouble with my school...maybe some parent who is a patron of the school will go to the concert that my song cycle will eventually be on and be so horrified that they renounce their patronage.

Edit: yes, despite the goofy devil smiley, it is really something I am quite conflicted on. I am just in that kind of mood right now.

I have dealt with similar issues. My paintings have often dealt with the nude, sexuality, and eroticism... since college. A couple of years ago I had several paintings pulled from a planned college exhibition by a rather conservative dean who was worried about offending someone. I should note that none of the paintings in question were in the least what might be considered graphic... let alone pornographic. Let's put it this way... if Michelangelo or Rubens were alive and painting today they would have difficulty getting their work shown in the US outside of the big New York galleries (which thrive on shock value).

As a public school teacher I recognize the tenuousness of my position. Teachers are seen as role models and as such many have unrealistic expectations of the position: Teachers shouldn't drink, smoke, have sex... or engage in any activities that aren't rated G. There have been teachers fired for posting a picture of themselves on Facebook holding a Guinness while on vacation in Ireland or dressed in a bikini while sunning themselves on the beach in Florida. One teacher in Texas (naturally) was fired for taking her students to the art museum where some of the impressionable urchins actually saw (gasp!) nekkid people in some paintings. The fact that a good many of them are surfing the web for porn or engaging in "sexting" was irrelevant. I have thought long and hard about employing a pseudonym when I begin to show again... although the way the schools are heading with all the recent Draconian slashing of budgets (while arguing that we must invest in education for the future of our children) I may just not need to concern myself with this issue at all. rather, I'll be focused upon returning to school and working toward a career change.


----------



## Polednice

Here's an interesting idea I came across today:



> Although [bodily functions] seem outside of the range of topics generally studied by social psychologists, a group of researchers, led by psychologist Jamie Goldenberg, have bravely ventured into this territory and made some important discoveries about the origins of body-related shame. According to Goldenberg and colleagues, bodily functions are threatening because they remind us of our "creatureliness" and therefore our mortality, or vulnerability to death. Societal rules about proper body maintenance exist in part to manage our discomfort with our own and others' animality, and we are presumably motivated to conform to these rules in order to gain social acceptance and feel valued, even when conformity, paradoxically, compromises our physical health.


----------



## Cnote11

Interestingly enough, I don't care one bit about death. Perhaps this is why I don't have sexual shame.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> Interestingly enough, I don't care one bit about death. Perhaps this is why I don't have sexual shame.


I personally do care about death, but I don't care about feeling like an animal (in fact, I think it's an important thing to acknowledge and remind ourselves about). Why don't you mind the prospect of death (and by that, I mean non-existence, not the process of dying)?


----------



## Cnote11

Why would one care? I, of course, do not want to die, but the thought doesn't bother me. I find it irrational to be. Once you die, death doesn't matter to you anymore. Nothing does, after all. A state of non-existence isn't a conscious one.


----------



## Philip

Cnote11 said:


> Why would one care? I, of course, do not want to die, but the thought doesn't bother me. I find it irrational to be. Once you die, death doesn't matter to you anymore. Nothing does, after all. A state of non-existence isn't a conscious one.


You should care because you might have forgotten to delete your browsing history.


----------



## Cnote11

:lol: Even so, in death I have nothing to hide!


----------

