Religion, Sex and Vulgarity

[OrphanPip]

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.

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.

[dizzydoll]

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.

[The Atheist]

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

Bingo!

A clever control mechanism.

[Virgil]

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.

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.

[Paulclem]

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.

[JuniperWoolf]

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.

[Paulclem]

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.

[Paulclem]

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.

[JuniperWoolf]

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).

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?

[Virgil]

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.

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.

[JuniperWoolf]

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.

-_- 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.

[BienvenuJDC]

-_- 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.

I'll agree with Virgil. It seems that feminism has effected and biased the field of Anthropology then.

[JuniperWoolf]

I'll agree with Virgil. It seems that feminism has effected and biased the field of Anthropology then.

Haha, yeah you're right... the collective group that values equality for men and women has infultrated the entire field of anthropology. We were in cahoots with the Jews and the Freemasons. Together, our three organizations now control the entire world!

[BienvenuJDC]

Haha, yeah you're right... the collective group that values equality for men and women has infultrated the entire field of anthropology. We were in cahoots with the Jews and the Freemasons. Together, our four organizations now control the entire world!

No, I didn't say that it infiltrated it. I said that it effected it. It very possibly could have been the presentation of the text, or maybe it was a particular professor that chose that textbook for those particular reasons. Many years of study and learning will broaden your horizons.

Don't believe everything that you read in a book. I'm sure that you are skeptical of those books that oppose your current views.

[OrphanPip]

Actually, I think the biggest supporter of the idea was Levi-Strauss, who isn't exactly popular with the feminists. They didn't like that he argued that the trade and use of women as objects was used to promote social cohesion in male dominated societies. Today it is, as far as I know, nearly universally accepted by anthropologist.

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. 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.

Cultures evolve though, and today's conceptions of marriage are not going to be the same as those of primitive societies.