Religion, Sex and Vulgarity

At what stage in society’s existence did sexual words and religious terms become commonly used to insult or offend others? And why? I’ve often wondered this, after all they are only words anyway, so why are these words most often chosen in swearing? Don’t get me wrong, I have no time for profanity, I’m just wondering about these connections.

It seems to me that many religious groups and other belief systems have sexual hang-ups, the evidence is in their teachings. I mean we were all born as a result of procreation, so why is it that some blurt out offensive sexual or religious terms [sometimes together] to be hostile to one another? What is the deeper psychology behind this?

Please keep comments clean.

:smile5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

At what stage in society’s existence did sexual words and religious terms become commonly used to insult or offend others?

---

Only Abrahamic religion suffers from this. They have very unhealthy obsession with Sex and women.

I think because men couldn't have babies they felt bit left out. So they invented a Male God so that they can feel bit superior than women ;-)

The use and foulness of them has come and gone over the centuries as well.

Blasphemy used to be the ultimate spoken sin, and at that stage, what we now see as foul language was fine. Nowadays, blasphemy is everywhere, but you still can't say the eff word on [US] TV.

Lote's largely right about religion being the cause of sexual terminology being obscene now. Almost all religions hate sex - it's hard to think about god when you're calling out his name in ecstasy.

:D

Maybe it's just because that's what seems to be the most shocking. If you get "SEX IS BAD" shoved down your throat since birth, your friend telling you that they just boinked your mom is probably going to have some kind of emotional effect.

As for why modern religions are so anti-sex, all I can say is that's not how things used to be. In pre-Christian Rome, they used to celebrate almost everything with an orgy (Saturnalia). I don't know why they decided to change things once they adopted Christianity, or why Christianity was so prudish in the first place. The whole sex=damnation thing is a relitively new idea.

Its really quite strange, and perhaps I think so because my parents never spoke to me about sex or religion, for that matter. I learned all that from my friends. Even more strange, on more than one occasion male friends have told me about women who began reading the bible straight after lovemaking. This was upsetting for my friends as they cared deeply for some of those women. Once would be bad enough to hear of this guilt but as I stated before it happened more than once, and who knows how many times it occurred back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

Even more strange, on more than one occasion male friends have told me about women who began reading the bible straight after lovemaking.

---

I would honestly have fallen out of bed laughing had that ever happened to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I would honestly have fallen out of bed laughing had that ever happened to me.

---

Hello my friend. Not if you care for the women, surely you wouldnt do that. You would try to understand what makes her tick and help her get over it. There are other issues surrounding sex that women have hang-ups about, like shyness. I am shy sexually. Men dont seem to share these problems, altho I have been told of a few but its usually fear of performance in their case. Either way, it wouldn't surprise me to find its all connected to religion in some way.

This is really a great issue and of course most of us were taught to be repulsed by sex. My parents were strict on sex and we were not even allowed to move with girls in my teens. Once a young girl proposed me and I could not make advances. For, we were taught that sex is a dangerous thing and indulging in acts of sex will lead to the fall of man morally and religiously. I tried to distance myself from girls, and talks about sex. But now I am no longer living with parents and enjoy independence both economically and intellectually. Now I will not feel guilty about. It is a natural thing. Yet having an outside matrimonial relationship is a matter that calls for great concerns. Sex, religions and vulgarity are totally mutually exclusive things. There is no link at all. Sex is a biological and emotional need, religion is a faith only and vulgarity is our attitude. Of course we must learn to enjoy sex guiltlessly and no need to read the Bible after lovemaking at all out of guilt. If you read the bible just out of any other impulses it is OK but when you do it out of guilt you need some tips on it, maybe some liberal minded scholars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

Hello my friend. Not if you care for the women, surely you wouldnt do that. You would try to understand what makes her tick and help her get over it.

---

Nah, I'd be ROFLing.

True!

I could never have a serious relationshipn with someone who reads the bible anyway. They'd be sick the first time I held a Black Mass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

There are other issues surrounding sex that women have hang-ups about, like shyness. I am shy sexually. Men dont seem to share these problems, altho I have been told of a few but its usually fear of performance in their case. Either way, it wouldn't surprise me to find its all connected to religion in some way.

---

Yes, performance anxiety is a big issue for some men, but I'm quite sure it has nothing to do with religion.

{edit}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

This is really a great issue and of course most of us were taught to be repulsed by sex. My parents were strict on sex and we were not even allowed to move with girls in my teens.

---

I have some idea how people from the East were raised. I am sure they consider people in the West to be very loose indeed. I would simply say the West broke away from 'old norms' and still many people from the East aspire to be like those in the West today. And vise verse. I give up.

I would say we came into this world the same way we came out. From the beginning our soul [which existed before birth] was connected to this single act of pleasure, but we have difficulties with it. I figure it has to be some kind a throwback conditioning to previous lives we will never know unless regressed to find out. From my point of view I am horrified by the open sexuality displayed by many of our youth today. Judgment aside, its clear I must change to accept, not them as they are our future.

And even on this site, I feel people read but are afraid or appalled by the topic to add their views. :frown2:

Don't forget the poop words!! :D

Errrmmm... my hypothesis for the reason why the religious types are so uptight about sex is that sex is a pretty powerful thing. We all have a drive to reproduce to propagate the species, etc etc, plus it just feels really good and is great entertainment, especially if there are no books or TVs to be found. By controlling sex, the church (note I said church, not god) found a way to control the universal means of procreation and entertainment among it's followers. What's more powerful than that?

A religion that's been around for two thousand years?? Hmmmm... :aureola:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

{edit}



I have some idea how people from the East were raised. I am sure they consider people in the West to be very loose indeed. I would simply say the West broke away from 'old norms' and still many people from the East aspire to be like those in the West today. And vise verse. I give up.

I would say we came into this world the same way we came out. From the beginning our soul [which existed before birth] was connected to this single act of pleasure, but we have difficulties with it. I figure it has to be some kind a throwback conditioning to previous lives we will never know unless regressed to find out. From my point of view I am horrified by the open sexuality displayed by many of our youth today. Judgment aside, its clear I must change to accept, not them as they are our future.

And even on this site, I feel people read but are afraid or appalled by the topic to add their views. :frown2:

---

I agree and of course in the east we have this feeling, in fact most think in our society that people in the east are too loose and have multiple relations. My own friends say that it is hard to get virginity in the west whereas it is something all the newly weds want in their spouses. However I differ. In fact a desire for mating is natural and in the east people are too much religiously bound whereas in the east they are open. But gradually the rift between both is disappearing. The reason is people are flocking westward in large masses from the east and they will assimilate or acculturate themselves. I am really happy to discuss this issue at great length here and of course some of the confusions with me will be clear

This might seem a real stupid question Blaze but I would sooner trust you than some website. If a woman in your country chose to not bear children how would the community feel about that?

It's easy from our modern perspective to question the ethics of bygone times, but sexual prohibitions weren't just about repression. They were also about protection - particularly for women. Sex can mean pregnancy of course, and in the past that had great consequences for the girl - sometimes death.

Nowadays we have the luxury of contraception, and better medical care, we can be more easy going in our attitudes about sex and it's relationship to language in swear words and religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

It's easy from our modern perspective to question the ethics of bygone times, but sexual prohibitions weren't just about repression. They were also about protection - particularly for women. Sex can mean pregnancy of course, and in the past that had great consequences for the girl - sometimes death.

Nowadays we have the luxury of contraception, and better medical care, we can be more easy going in our attitudes about sex and it's relationship to language in swear words and religion.

---

I was going to say something along those lines. Absolutely. Sex = children, and that causes social problems if the mating pair is not of age and capable of supporting them.

It probably has more to do with males controlling women to guarantee the paternity of women. That's why virgin wives are so universally popular across many cultures. I think it's a little optimistic to concentrate on protecting women from the dangers of childbirth, especially when Christianity's views of marriage essentially prescribes them to be baby factories with little regard to their health.

I would venture a guess that religious restrictions of masturbation probably arise out of some primitive vain idolatry of semen.

The persecution of homosexual acts arise out of the usual desire to punish anything out of the normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

It probably has more to do with males controlling women to guarantee the paternity of women. That's why virgin wives are so universally popular across many cultures. I think it's a little optimistic to concentrate on protecting women from the dangers of childbirth, especially when Christianity's views of marriage essentially prescribes them to be baby factories with little regard to their health.

I would venture a guess that religious restrictions of masturbation probably arise out of some primitive vain idolatry of semen.

The persecution of homosexual acts arise out of the usual desire to punish anything out of the normal.

---

You show how very little that you really know about true Christianity...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

You show how very little that you really know about true Christianity...

---

How can anybody know the true Christianity with the 1001 varieties of it out there.

The other two parts weren't directed at Christianity specifically, but at religion in general.

1) I agree that there are many contradictory doctrines based on Christianity...the Roman Catholic Church in middle of it all, however, I can know true Christianity by the Scriptures where it is defined.

2) If you generalize the many different religions into one, then your statement is rather useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

2) If you generalize the many different religions into one, then your statement is rather useless.

---

Well how else should I address generalized trends that cross between religions. Clearly it isn't a stretch to imply that multiple religions prescribe against certain behavior because there is a tendency in most humans, that transcends culture, to limit certain behavior. e.g. most religions have prohibitions against certain kinds of murder.

But a general statement concerning multiple religions may virtually include only a very small percentage of religions as a whole........therefore it would be a useless statement for the generalization of religions as a whole. Unless you were to include what religions actually believe such things and the weight of those religions in comparison to those who believe otherwise, your statement is nothing more than an idea floating around in your head.

Is Christianity in opposition to masturbation? Or is it just certain varieties? Does the Bible even mention it?

I imagine that you are also in a very biased position (as I am also since I am devoted to a particular religion) in respects to any religion that is in opposition to your lifestyle choices. Do you speak with a biased chip on your shoulder.....or do you offer accurate critique of religious doctrine?

The marriage as a means to assure paternity is a widely accepted theory in anthropology and evolutionary psychology. It is supported by the fact that matrilineal societies have no marriage structures, and have communal child-rearing. There seems to be something about male dominance of a society that pushes for the creation of social structures that ensure the official right of a male for exclusive sexual access to a woman. It is hardly my own invention.

This isn't to say that marriage today is the same as it was in primitive societies, but this origin of marriage is evident even in the language. After all the word husband itself implies control of the wife.

As to the masturbation idea, the notion that semen embodied some sort of mystical life-creating male energy that shouldn't be wasted was prevalent all through the ancient Greeks well into the European Enlightenment. This is why you get expressions like le petit mort in French to describe ejaculation.

I'm also not any more fond of religions that have nothing against homosexuality. I haven't run off to join the United Church of Canada despite their support of homosexuality, including performing marriages. I don't find the ancient Greeks any less ridiculous because of the permissiveness of homosexual acts in their society. I'm not going to get into the lifestyle "choice" issue.

Before you continue to generalize Christianity...you ought to learn what the Bible actually says about things. Psychology and anthropology has nothing to do with the "development" of Christianity...and (according to true Christianity) marriage did not originate from men, but from God...

I agree with Pip on every point. Way to bring anthropology in there.

And Bienvenu, anthropology is actually the study of marriage AND religion (which haven't/aren't always a part of the same thing, in some cultures marriage has nothing to do with religion). You can find anthropological evidence of marriage in every single culture way before you can find evidence for religion. It's a very old concept (older than god(s)) and it arose for exactly the same reasons that Pip has already explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I was going to say something along those lines. Absolutely. Sex = children, and that causes social problems if the mating pair is not of age and capable of supporting them.

---

We have a better understanding of the reproductive system now. We also have contraception, and protection from STDs. So why does the stigma remain?

Language has never been "just words". Since ancient times, there have been words that do things (performative language, as John Austin would say). Most rituals have a linguistic element that must be adhered to to evoke the desired result. For example: magic spells. Say the wrong words and the spell doesn't work.

From there, I think it's a short step to blaspheming or sinning through speech.

Gosh, this sounds exactly like a paper I wrote on Dante several years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilde woman

Language has never been "just words". Since ancient times, there have been words that do things (performative language, as John Austin would say). Most rituals have a linguistic element that must be adhered to to evoke the desired result. For example: magic spells. Say the wrong words and the spell doesn't work.

From there, I think it's a short step to blaspheming or sinning through speech.

Gosh, this sounds exactly like a paper I wrote on Dante several years ago.

---

Of course words implicate something really important under different circumstances. In Hinduism words are not sheer words; they are great symbols and have therefore great implications, meanings. There is the Sabda Brahma, that connotes the word is God and there was an word, the first word is Om and it is a sacred syllable and if man keeps on pronouncing this continually he will be liberated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

Hello my friend. Not if you care for the women, surely you wouldnt do that. You would try to understand what makes her tick and help her get over it. There are other issues surrounding sex that women have hang-ups about, like shyness. I am shy sexually. Men dont seem to share these problems, altho I have been told of a few but its usually fear of performance in their case. Either way, it wouldn't surprise me to find its all connected to religion in some way.

---

i had an islamic work collegue who if he heard jokes about masterbation or sex would run off to the staff room to read his holy texts. he was a 40 something year old virgin who got drunk for the first time and failed to turn up for work for 3 days due to the hang over! of course there was the funny side but at the same time it was quite tragic that he could be affected so deeply by innane idle chatter. i thinkl sex is a natural element of being. i am shy sexualy and feel nauseous by the hollow eyed magazine staring deep into my soul and how excited and repulsed it makes me feel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jikan myshkin

i had an islamic work collegue who if he heard jokes about masterbation or sex would run off to the staff room to read his holy texts. he was a 40 something year old virgin who got drunk for the first time and failed to turn up for work for 3 days due to the hang over!

---

Thats amazing, so it shows me this happens in other parts of the world too. Proves my point, there is some deep grained connection between sex and religion. Its quite bizarre actually. All this chit has been carried down for many many generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Before you continue to generalize Christianity...you ought to learn what the Bible actually says about things. Psychology and anthropology has nothing to do with the "development" of Christianity...and (according to true Christianity) marriage did not originate from men, but from God...

---

From what I believe, everyone we have slept with is considered to be our marriage partner according to the bible, is that true?

..

Also in certain cultures, I believe, they will abort the girl child. Today we have designer babies where we can choose the sex of the child in advance. That might put an end to some abortions but I am not sure I feel comfortable with this type of genetic engineering. It still amazes me at how society, in this day and age, still values a boy than girl child. After all the girl will reproduce children, the boy can only seed the offspring and he is not even needed anymore due to semen-banks these days.

..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

It probably has more to do with males controlling women to guarantee the paternity of women. That's why virgin wives are so universally popular across many cultures. I think it's a little optimistic to concentrate on protecting women from the dangers of childbirth, especially when Christianity's views of marriage essentially prescribes them to be baby factories with little regard to their health.

I would venture a guess that religious restrictions of masturbation probably arise out of some primitive vain idolatry of semen.

The persecution of homosexual acts arise out of the usual desire to punish anything out of the normal.

---

I think that's too simplistic Orphan. It's very complex, but what will a Father's primary attitude to his children be? I would suggest protection - from unsuitable males, from social exclusion diue to taboo breaking, from economic insecurity, from a too early pregnancy - and then add in all the cultural stuff and the Father's own attitudes. Definately complex, but primarily an attitude of protection. The majority of Fathers want their kids to be happy.

I've never heard of a primitive vain idolatry of semen - the nearest thing I can think of is the Hindu Lingam - which represents the creative force of the universe.

And you are a good dad Paul, I just sense it. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I think that's too simplistic Orphan. It's very complex, but what will a Father's primary attitude to his children be? I would suggest protection - from unsuitable males, from social exclusion diue to taboo breaking, from economic insecurity, from a too early pregnancy - and then add in all the cultural stuff and the Father's own attitudes. Definately complex, but primarily an attitude of protection. The majority of Fathers want their kids to be happy.

---

I don't disagree that fathers feel protective of their children, it is evolutionarily sensible to do so. However, I still think marriage arises more out of male anxiety over paternity. Marriage age in early periods had always been pretty much immediately after puberty. Today, marriage may function socially to protect girls from too early pregnancies, maybe even more so in the late 19th century, but I doubt this was a concern 3000 years ago. As to the social taboo this is itself created by the existence of the marriage norm to begin with. Economic insecurity arises out of the existence of economic systems, which in turn are part of the notion of ownership which lends itself to patriarchal marriage models. I could agree that marriage has two primary functions in early societies, controlling one's wife and controlling one's daughters. Control need not mean evil intentions on the part of males, but it is undeniable that women have long been viewed as property and marriage has been vital part of that system.

I don't think marriage is inherently bad or that it is still what it was in early societies. The growing education and liberation of women has forever changed what marriage means in our society. A fair argument can be made today for marriage as a social system that promotes security. Of course, it also has significant symbolic meaning to a great many people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

Also in certain cultures, I believe, they will abort the girl child. Today we have designer babies where we can choose the sex of the child in advance. That might put an end to some abortions but I am not sure I feel comfortable with this type of genetic engineering. It still amazes me at how society, in this day and age, still values a boy than girl child. After all the girl will reproduce children, the boy can only seed the offspring and he is not even needed anymore due to semen-banks these days.

---

This is technically social engineering not genetic. The sperm sorting doesn't involve any actual genetic manipulation. I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion of abortion, which has had me butt heads with others I mostly agree with because of my slightly more "conservative" views on the subject. Although, in the case of American institutions where sperm sorting is done to choose the sex of a child parents seem to split about 50/50 on the choice of gender. Usually, the gender of the child is chosen on the basis of the gender of their other children when they have them. I think the importance of male children in places like China will decrease with increasing industrialization. Where I live, in Quebec, women don't take the name of their husband and they have the choice of hybrid names or either parent's name for the child.

Thanks for filling me in Pip. I bet marriage will become extinct in time and we can always be sure who the mother of the child is, not so about the father. Does this mean children will one day carry the mothers surname instead of the fathers? A British passport is allocated on maternity today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

However, I still think marriage arises more out of male anxiety over paternity.

---

Bingo!

A clever control mechanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

We have a better understanding of the reproductive system now. We also have contraception, and protection from STDs. So why does the stigma remain?

---

I think the stigma has been greatly reduced. I don't think it's what it once was. People have sex regularly without being married and no one, unless it's aldultery, blinks. I don't think the stigma remains at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I think that's too simplistic Orphan. It's very complex, but what will a Father's primary attitude to his children be? I would suggest protection - from unsuitable males, from social exclusion diue to taboo breaking, from economic insecurity, from a too early pregnancy - and then add in all the cultural stuff and the Father's own attitudes. Definately complex, but primarily an attitude of protection. The majority of Fathers want their kids to be happy.

I've never heard of a primitive vain idolatry of semen - the nearest thing I can think of is the Hindu Lingam - which represents the creative force of the universe.

---

It's more that that Paul. It's the concept of a family. A man is not just a swinging dick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I think the stigma has been greatly reduced. I don't think it's what it once was. People have sex regularly without being married and no one, unless it's aldultery, blinks. I don't think the stigma remains at all.



It's more that that Paul. It's the concept of a family. A man is not just a swinging dick.

---

I'm not sure what you mean. I was just talking about the Father's attitude to females in the protective sense and not really referring to other aspects. I was just adding this facet into the mix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

It's more that that Paul. It's the concept of a family. A man is not just a swinging dick.

---

Haha, well you're definately keeping the theme of "vulgarity" in this thread.

I don't think you're understanding Pip though. He's talking about the tendancy to enforce monogamy (especially on women) from a very long-term evolutionary anthropology point of view. He's not saying that men consciously think "hmm, if I force women to wait until marriage, I'll be able to control the paternity of her children!" Men want to produce children on a genetic level. If the female is mating with more than one partner, the likelihood that the offspring is his is decreased. He feels anxiety, and this anxiety leads him to enforce rules on the female (which he is able to do because he is bigger and stronger than her, and therefore controls resources such as food) so that he can control the paternity of the child. It's just a species trend (one that's not even confined to only our species). It's not "evil" on the part of the male, it's not even "clever." It just is.

However, this trend is happily dying in our species because of things like rational thought (the biggest, strongest male is no longer the only one with control over the resources) and women's liberation.

Control need not mean evil intentions on the part of males, but it is undeniable that women have long been viewed as property and marriage has been vital part of that system.
- Orphan

Yes I can go with that. Ownership - protection - paternity - cultural norms.
Complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Haha, well you're definately keeping the theme of "vulgarity" in this thread.

I don't think you're understanding Pip though. He's talking about the tendancy to enforce monogamy (especially on women) from a very long-term evolutionary anthropology point of view. He's not saying that men consciously think "hmm, if I force women to wait until marriage, I'll be able to control the paternity of her children!" Men want to produce children on a genetic level. If the female is mating with more than one partner, the likelihood that the offspring is his is decreased. He feels anxiety, and this anxiety leads him to enforce rules on the female (which he is able to do because he is bigger and stronger than her, and therefore controls resources such as food) so that he can control the paternity of the child. It's just a species trend (one that's not even confined to only our species). It's not "evil" on the part of the male, it's not even "clever." It just is.

However, this trend is happily dying in our species because of things like rational thought (the biggest, strongest male is no longer the only one with control over the resources) and women's liberation.

---

That's just speculation inferred from how cultures have ended up with male dominance. It could well have been that females found it safer to stick with one partner in a social grouping rather than risk the violence that comes with jealousy.

I also think you may be optimistic about the equality aspect. In India - with a population approaching 1 billion people -the vast majority will have arranged marriages. It's no longer about bigger stronger males, but an entrenched cultural system that is also supported by the females.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

That's just speculation inferred from how cultures have ended up with male dominance. It could well have been that females found it safer to stick with one partner in a social grouping rather than risk the violence that comes with jealousy.

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I also think you may be optimistic about the equality aspect. In India - with a population approaching 1 billion people -the vast majority will have arranged marriages. It's no longer about bigger stronger males, but an entrenched cultural system that is also supported by the females.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I'm not sure what you mean. I was just talking about the Father's attitude to females in the protective sense and not really referring to other aspects. I was just adding this facet into the mix.

---

Oh, ok. If it's part of a complex mix, sure I understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Haha, well you're definately keeping the theme of "vulgarity" in this thread.

I don't think you're understanding Pip though. He's talking about the tendancy to enforce monogamy (especially on women) from a very long-term evolutionary anthropology point of view. He's not saying that men consciously think "hmm, if I force women to wait until marriage, I'll be able to control the paternity of her children!" Men want to produce children on a genetic level. If the female is mating with more than one partner, the likelihood that the offspring is his is decreased. He feels anxiety, and this anxiety leads him to enforce rules on the female (which he is able to do because he is bigger and stronger than her, and therefore controls resources such as food) so that he can control the paternity of the child. It's just a species trend (one that's not even confined to only our species). It's not "evil" on the part of the male, it's not even "clever." It just is.

---

I understood and I didn't agree. Or at least not completely. Your description and I assume Orphan's, characterizes male "enforced monogamy" as biological pheneomena. That's the way you're describing it. I've never seen any biological (scientific) study that shows it's a biological fact that men insist on women being monogomous. This is silly feminist dogma. If you go through history you will find many examples of societies where women change husbands, including our own medivel times. If this were a cause and effect scientific principle then divorce and remarriage shouldn't happen and adoptions shouldn't happen.

It's ridiculous to simplify human dynamics to causes and effects. There is a huge complexity to human relationship phenomena that cannot be put into any single equation.