Religion, Sex and Vulgarity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

A man is not just a swinging dick.

---

Mmm. I think mostly he is, and while I cannot assert this with an entirely straight face, it is usually the feminine social cohesion that tames males, from elephants to apes like us--overly aggressive males usually aren't that successful, unless their dominance is moderated by the female acceptance.

Pip, I rather like Levi-Strauss, and should have figured out you'd be familiar with his early ground-breaking work; may I ask if you are male or female? I only ask in order not to assume.

I am not a very good feminist, however, as I am not sure what gender revisionism means, at the end of the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I am not a very good feminist, however, as I am not sure what gender revisionism means, at the end of the day.

---

I don't think that there's a universally accepted direction and proposed outcome for feminism, the whole thing is just a reaction to the way that women have been treated throughout history. It's not so much a matter of logical organization as it is a sort of collective unconscious feeling of indignity. You'll find that in any group that's been oppressed. The civil rights movement for example was (at least in my opinion with what I’ve read so far) more the grand scale result of a visceral feeling and continuous need. Collectively, groups are irrational. You take a big group of people who have been oppressed and are reacting against the same source, that’s how change really seems to come about (look at the French revolution, the civil rights movement, the American revolution, pre-Nazi Germany, really the majority of fast, grand-scale changes; these weren‘t logical, well thought out events. They were just reactions to oppression and/or extreme need).

I could be wrong though; that’s just what I’ve been thinking about lately.

Nice point Woolf. I have done some slightly heavy reading in feminist theory, as when I was still working I took a shot at my doctorate under Nina Auerbach at U of Penn--but I do not think we can just flatten differences with a steam roller and then sing Hosanna. Gender divides are nearly universal in the evolution of life, and since I should have been in bed at least 3 hours back I'll edit myself later :lol:

(I will eventually shut up for a few days. I am under stress and posting is like my way of not wanting to deal with red tape. I should use my writing for that, but I need to relax here and there.)

Gender divides is a universal thing and of course there is a matter of degree only. In some countries women are simply taken as commodities and they are told to remain rooted within their family peripherals. They simply yieldingly succumb to the circumstances their husbands want or their parents want. The foundation of their systems or customs is their religion and in one religious text I have come upon a passage in which woman is a species that needs to be under a strict restraint all the time all else they are vulnerable. When she is a baby it is her parents who must kind of have her within their reach and after that she is the being that must get married to a man even against her will. Then she must always stay under the vigilance of her husband and if the husband dies she must be under her son' control or else she is likely to be led astray

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Like I said, humans aren't the only species who's females are restricted to one reproductive partner. We can better understand why our species has the reproductive trends that it does by observing other species, ones who's motives are a bit more transparent to us. Just as an example, I'll use the deer in my local area. The males fight it out, and the winner is allowed to mate with the female. They mate away, then that male heads off to the next battle at a chance to mate again. He can mate as many times as he can win the fight, but the female is restricted to that one male. This has nothing to do with her security, and everything to do with the male's need to ensure that the offspring belong to him. This pattern occurs everywhere in nature, there are A LOT of polygynous species. Maybe it might be better for the female to mate with a number of different mates so that each male in the population treated her and her offspring with care (on the chance that the offspring might be his) but that's not the case; the male must make sure that the young is his, because the need to do so is written in his genetic code. It's so that strong babies are born, it has nothing to do with the needs of the females. Like I said, now that physical strength isn't that important anymore and males are losing their monopoly on the resources that we need to survive, I think we'll move more towards a polygynandrous society (because in nature, that's just what happens when both sexes have an equal role in terms of obtaining resources and caring for young).



As technology becomes more advanced (thereby improving global communication) and the role of women in society becomes more important, I believe that women will have more of a say in who they will sleep with. Arranged marriage is like a business contract; it's all about convenience and survival. I don't see why that should have anything to do with sex. Breeding? Maybe. But sex? There's no emotional bond there (at least not initially), so why should either partner feel any loyalty to one another? Historically, the male in such relationships have been unfaithful. As women obtain more power, I could see them starting to choose their sexual partners based on... well... fun, and their emotions. Why not?

---

Hi juniper - just to be clear - I am all for the liberation of women. It just makes fair sense.

I agree that sex/ marriage is no longer about the strongest male dominating, and i don't think it's been that way for millennia. It's more about culture now, so I don't give much credence to the animal - human corollary as a result of that. If we were suddenly thrust back into some pre-historical situation, I think new societies would form rather than an animalistic model. I think it simplifies any meaning for our human cultural situation out.

We are lucky in the West that we have wealth and technology, and we are able to move on fronts like equality for women etc. The third world still has a long way to go.

Arranged marriage is like a business contract; it's all about convenience and survival. I don't see why that should have anything to do with sex. Breeding? Maybe. But sex?

Arranged marriage is not a business contract. It's not about conveniance and survival either. It is the Asian alternative to our "love" marriages. Both have their strong points. If it was just as you say then western asian women would not opt for this, but living in a multicultural city - I know that most asians do go for the arranged marriages. I'm not saying it will survive in the long term in western societies, but it is a fact in the asian subcontinent.

Historically, the male in such relationships have been unfaithful.

I don't think you can make this asserion about the whole of the asian subcontinent. We see and hear the bad stories only.

I think we'll move more towards a polygynandrous society (because in nature, that's just what happens when both sexes have an equal role in terms of obtaining resources and caring for young).

Maybe - I think serial monogamy is more likely and is normal now. Polygamy brings problems. Or did you mean polyandry? The only place I know of that has this system is Tibet. this was instilled in order to keep land and property together for economic reasons. A woman would be married to a man and his brothers in the full sense of the word.

As women obtain more power, I could see them starting to choose their sexual partners based on... well... fun, and their emotions. Why not?

Don't they do that already in the West? Yay to that too. There's plenty of time to be serious.

Interestingly, in China, due to the restrictions on births imposed by the government and the cultural preference for a male child - I read that there will be millions of chinese men who will not be able to find a female partner. This puts the women in a very powerful position, but whether it will produce significant differences in attitudes to women remains to be seen. (I hope it does by the way. )

Fascinating discussion. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

I don't think that there's a universally accepted direction and proposed outcome for feminism, the whole thing is just a reaction to the way that women have been treated throughout history. It's not so much a matter of logical organization as it is a sort of collective unconscious feeling of indignity. You'll find that in any group that's been oppressed. The civil rights movement for example was (at least in my opinion with what I’ve read so far) more the grand scale result of a visceral feeling and continuous need. Collectively, groups are irrational. You take a big group of people who have been oppressed and are reacting against the same source, that’s how change really seems to come about (look at the French revolution, the civil rights movement, the American revolution, pre-Nazi Germany, really the majority of fast, grand-scale changes; these weren‘t logical, well thought out events. They were just reactions to oppression and/or extreme need).

I could be wrong though; that’s just what I’ve been thinking about lately.

---

As an offtopic comment, the idea that groups are always irrational is sort of debatable since there are situations where crowds as a collective might make better judgements than the individuals. There are some hypothesi that on certain conditions( diversity of opinion, independence,decentralisation and aggregation) the crowd may be smarter than all of its members.



As for an ontopic comment, the idea of "ownership - protection - paternity - cultural norms" seems believable. I mean, surely there are other influential reasons for why the cultural norms are what they are but this as one of the reasons seems quite plausible.

Allow me to ask a question here : What is the unit of a strong and well organized society ?

Religion . Isalm for instance , aimed at creating societies by organizing the relationships among human beings . Thus , the family , not the individual, becomes the unit of the society . In this light you can understand the relation between sex and religion .

Sex is " Organized not suppressed " within the instituation of marriage . The legistlation aimed at protecting the "Family " as a notion and a fundamental unit of its society . It is not looked at its nature only but at " its Effects " and Results , too.
Look for instance at the difference between the time of Solayman and Mohammad ( P.B U.T) . Although they are both prohets Solayman had many women . hundreds . We would ask how a prophet
would be allowed to do sex freely and have relations with that number of women . But at that time religion was in its basic form .With Mohammad the last of prohets , Religion becomes fully developped , it aimed at constructing a strong society with legistlations that organized every detail in your life .Sex is now looked at from different perspectives . It is not only to satisfy your needs which is very natural and not vulgar at all but also contributing in creating your own society as a Muslim . The number becomes limited and Mohammad married diffrent women from different tribes to make a social bond
between them .
Moreover ,a Muslim is taught how to control his desires and basic intincts , using his own free will :What transcends human beings above animals .
Animals cannot say " No" to their instincts , but a human being should say it when necessary .

Religion is not only God and prayer , it is a system of life . For sure a religious couldn't look at sex from one side as others do .

I would never allow any religion or belief system to dictate to me sexually or otherwise. As far as I am concerned all religions were created by men for insecure men, and for most of womens' existance she had no rights, thats until the 60's [or perhaps a little earlier] when women finally said no more. I thank God for this. Today she writes her own cheques/checks and SHE decides whether she will or will not get married and if/not she will have kids at all. Its took a long time to get here, we finally made it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Hi juniper - just to be clear - I am all for the liberation of women.

---

You'll be a long time living that one down in't cloob!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

If we were suddenly thrust back into some pre-historical situation, I think new societies would form rather than an animalistic model.

---

Hmm, I'm not so sure.

They don't call us "alpha males" for nothing.

In a case of survival of the fittest, the fittest will also make the damn rules!

Understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Arranged marriage is not a business contract. It's not about conveniance and survival either. It is the Asian alternative to our "love" marriages.

---

I wouldn't go along with that - I think arranged marriages are more about bigotry than anything else. Parents can ensure a "suitable" match for their children to ensure no undesirable genes are introduced.

I had a great case rceently where an Indian I know went back to India to meet and marry his spouse, who was completely unknown to him.

When I met with her on their return, I could only guess that his first thought on meeting her was "Thanks, Dad!"

She was bloody gorgeous!

Whether arranged marriages "work" in their own country, I have no idea, but of the many I know here, they "work" insofar as the woman does not complain about her husband having affairs or using prostitutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I don't think you can make this asserion about the whole of the asian subcontinent. We see and hear the bad stories only.

---

Of the 20 or so arranged marriages I know enough about to say for sure, I am confident every one of them has an unfaithful husband.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddy_caddy

Allow me to ask a question here : What is the unit of a strong and well organized society ?

---

Depends which society you mean and what that society uses as its cultural norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddy_caddy

Religion . Isalm for instance , aimed at creating societies by organizing the relationships among human beings .

---

I see that as extremely dangerous. Why would anyone let a religion rule the [arguably] most important aspect of their entire life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddy_caddy

With Mohammad the last of prohets , Religion becomes fully developped , it aimed at constructing a strong society with legistlations that organized every detail in your life .

---

Does this mean marrying nine year olds is ok? If Muhammad was the last prophet, then he must have been quite right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddy_caddy

Moreover ,a Muslim is taught how to control his desires and basic intincts , using his own free will :What transcends human beings above animals .
Animals cannot say " No" to their instincts , but a human being should say it when necessary .

---

What makes it necessary? How is it proof of free will if it is nothing more than a theological imperative? Surely, free will would require a conscious reasoning not to follow the instinct other than; "the quran says so"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

-_- Actually, it's a very well known anthropological concept. I literally learned it in Anthro 101 (seriously). If you aren't aware of this trend, then don't blame your limited knowledge on us. Look it up for yourself. Pick up a textbook.

---

Yeah, I've heard it too, but that's anthropology, not science. You know often they change opinions in the social sciences? Every ten years. If it were up to social scientists (and they are not scientists) Freud would still be an acceptable means of trewating mental illness. And you yourself said Freud doesn't hold up to empiracal test. And neither will this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

As to their being exceptions to the rule Virgil, there are very few things that have a direct 1:1 relationship with genes. Our culture has an effect on the expression of our nature, and our nature in turn effects the culture.

---

I'm in agreement with that. I said it's a complex relationship.

Quote:

---

The desire to control the paternity of your child is most likely genetic, but that doesn't mean in all situations that a culture that reacts to this will arise. However, obligatory female monogamy (male polygamy often found alongside this) is widely found in male dominated societies. The few female dominated societies we know of had no marriage structures.

---

That I do not believe. You yourself imply that some cultures do it and some don't. That means it's not biological. It is not a cause and effect phenomena.

Virgil Anthropology is a Science. It might come up in arts degrees as Archaeology does but its classed as a science because it originated in science and some of the most famous British Scientists of the 19th century were involved in the Royal Anthropological Society. Its foundation is in science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

Virgil Anthropology is a Science. It might come up in arts degrees as Archaeology does but its classed as a science because it originated in science and some of the most famous British Scientists of the 19th century were involved in the Royal Anthropological Society. Its foundation is in science.

---

No it's not a science. They don't take science courses, math courses, they don't take calculus, they don't take biology. They may take some simplified course material, but it has no rigor of scinece and scientific experimentation or mathematical underpinnings. My brother has his PhD in Anthropology and is a professor of anthropology. It's not science.

I'm talking from a historical perspective Virgil. And i still disagree. There are Anthropological courses that do focus on Science, Maths and biology, maybe not in the states but certainly over here. Its ethnography. I've been considering doing one myself as part of my degree and just did an anthropological section in my current course that delt a lot with biology and i've done some in the past also.

Juniper i understand where you are coming from regarding the monogamy. When it comes to procreation, men like to know that their line is being continued. They cant be certain if this is the case if the woman they are with is has more than one sexual partner. Any of the men could be the paternal father. Monogamy for a woman generally garuntees that the children are his and that his lineage is continued.

[QUOTE=The Atheist;876009]You'll be a long time living that one down in't cloob!

They don't call us "alpha males" for nothing.

In a case of survival of the fittest, the fittest will also make the damn rules!

Understand?

I wouldn't go along with that - I think arranged marriages are more about bigotry than anything else. Parents can ensure a "suitable" match for their children to ensure no undesirable genes are introduced.

I had a great case rceently where an Indian I know went back to India to meet and marry his spouse, who was completely unknown to him.

When I met with her on their return, I could only guess that his first thought on meeting her was "Thanks, Dad!"

She was bloody gorgeous!

Whether arranged marriages "work" in their own country, I have no idea, but of the many I know here, they "work" insofar as the woman does not complain about her husband having affairs or using prostitutes.

Of the 20 or so arranged marriages I know enough about to say for sure, I am confident every one of them has an unfaithful husband.

Hi Atheist - well cloob's got to have someone to take the piss out of!

As for survival of the fittest - isn't that meaning survival of the one who best fits the situation rather than than the biggest/ strongest? A group has a better chance of survival than an individual. Ok so the group might be Big Baz and his mates - but they still have to co-operate as a group with inter group rules too.

As for the arranged marriages - well there is the "infrastructure of affairs" in the westernised - developed world that you don't get in the other countries so much. I really can't imagine that the half a billion nearly males on the Indian Subcontinent can do this, even if they wanted to. Most are in poverty too - 800 million?

Who knows though - it might be right. A bit of an indictment if it is true.