Religion, Sex and Vulgarity

[MarkBastable]

This is not a question of 'right amount' and "wrong amount' of each of them. It is about human values, beliefs and human attitudes towards the use and abuse of these behaviors in a certain social setup

But you said there was 'too much rape and homosexuality'. 'Too much' means 'the wrong amount'. And as you said 'too much', as opposed to 'too little', you apparently think there should be less rape and homosexuality. So there must be a smaller amount of rape and homosexuality that you think is not 'too much'.

[blazeofglory]

But you said there was 'too much rape and homosexuality'. 'Too much' means 'the wrong amount'. And as you said 'too much', as opposed to 'too little', you apparently think there should be less rape and homosexuality. So there must be a smaller amount of rape and homosexuality that you think is not 'too much'.

May be you are right and what I wanted to say and what really got written could not be synchronized. For I am poor at English after all

[MarkBastable]

All I want to point out is I support the idea of natural behavior in sexual matters and want to raise certain objections against our taboos, rules laden social systems

This raises another interesting point, actually. How do we know what is 'natural' and what is 'cultural' in human behaviour? You suggest that rape is the result of tensions created by the oppressive effects of culture and religion - and that without those influences no one would force themselves sexually on another person.

But one could also argue that it's only the influence of culture and religion that discourages humans from forcing themselves sexually on anyone else. In other words, the conventions of civilisation are designed to prevent rape, and generally speaking that's what they do.

Unfortunately, we don't have a human test group for this - as all humans live, one way or another, in groups that have rules of culture and morality.

My conclusion would be that the very fact that there are no humans who live without these things means that these things are natural to humans. Humans cannot live without culture and a moral structure (which tends to codify itself into religion), any more than koalas can live without eucalyptus trees. That is our natural state.

[Niamh]

Sorry I still disagree as to Anthropology. They do not take regular science or math classes nor do they even take statistics. Anthropology is part of the Liberal Arts departments not the Science, and so they have different pre-requisites and curriculumn. They are not scientists.

There is a world of difference between what social scientists consider knowledge and what scientists consider fact. Let me put it to you this way: there is a world of difference between Darwin (scientist) and Freud (social science crap).

As i said, its obviously different in the states. For Anthropology over here, and Archaeology for that matter, you study biology and do some basic matamatics. I've opted to do an Archoeology course this summer and i have to do maths, and it's catagorised as a science course along with Anthropology. If i dropped one of my lit courses and opted for an Anthropology Course, i'd be working towards a Science Degree and not an Arts Degree. Yes they are found in Arts departments, but so is Geology. However they are also found in Science departments as well.

For full Anthropology degree you'd study some genetics and even some aspects of medicine. With Biology, they would fall under the ethnography side of Anthropology, and would involve the study of Darwins Origins of the Species, and Robert Knox's Race of Men. Herbert Spencers Principles of Biology was very important to early Anthropological studies and most of the names above were involved in The Royal Anthropological Society.

Even when i worked as an Archaeologist, i used maths and, depending on the type of site, biology on a daily bases.

But as i said, its obviously different in the states. We dont Have "liberal Arts".

Anyway this is Off topic.

[Paulclem]

I guess it depends on how many survivors there are, but someone's going to want to be boss, and I'm seeing hairy knuckles being more likely to run the group than the guy with the bright ideas.

In the long term, a cooperative group maximising its resources is definitely the likeliest to survive nature, but the problem is, I wonder whether they'd get the chance to do so because the hairy knuckles will just kill and eat the nerd group. Taken away from our current evolved status, I suspect we might just become extinct quite quickly.

Get the nerds to gang up on hairy knuckles - or poison one of themselves in order to kill him off.

I think our specialisation would be a problem. We'd need particular specialists. You fishing - Prend for animal rearing - me for teach... oh no - I'd be the sacrificial one...

Yeah, the whole "wisdom of crowds" debate... that could be a whole other thread unto itself. For my part, I've gone into it a lot and I doubt it's validity. There are other scientists with a better background in psychology than me who would argue that it's plausable, and still other specialists who would say that it's a crappy parlour trick. Here's a youtube video that you might like about a "psychologist" who attempts to prove the theory and just winds up lying to everyone and looking like a jackass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DODGR...os=GcUIPbaDSes

Go to part 5 for Captian Dis's debunk.

Crowd behavior is a pretty interesting subject, there are people who dedicate their entire lives to it (sociologists).


Well alright, then what is marriage (and I'm talking about both arranged and the newfangled "love" marriages that we have in the west)? You pool your resources with another person, you create offspring and you take different roles in caring for them. That's the purpose of marriage, right? It's a partnership, a business contract. The business is the creation an upbringing of babies so that the species survives. Love doesn't even have to enter into the equation.




Nah, I meant polygynandry.

Poly = many
gyn = female
andre = male

It's like a tribe where the members mate with basically whoever. A fantastic example is the bonobos. They're these cool little type of chimp (which means that they're our first cousins). Basically every female in the tribe mates with every male, breeding is a group thing. Because the males can't be sure which of the offspring are theirs, they take care of ALL of the offspring equally. Bonobos are the most peaceful out of all primates (including ourselves). Serial monogomy might be a possability, too. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.



Yeah, I've been looking forward to seeing how that situation turns out. Serves them right for literally sending their daughters "up the river."



Anthropology follows the emperical method of inquiry. If I wanted to do an experiment right now to see how salt effects the growth of one's lawn, and I built the experiment properly and with a good control, my results would still be valid despite the fact that I don't have any advanced calculus degrees. A piece of paper doesn't mean squat if the methodology is correct, my degree wouldn't effect the results at all.

Thanks Juniper - polygnandry - every day is an education.

I don't concur with the animal Bonobo analogy to humans. I think we're far too complex.

I can understand your view of marriages, but i don't see that your analysis is valid. Relationships are'nt about one thing and they change over time too.

[caddy_caddy]

[QUOTE=dizzydoll;876005]

I would never allow any religion or belief system to dictate to me sexually or otherwise.

You're completely free to follow or not to .

As far as I am concerned all religions were created by men for insecure men,

The religion I've talked about is not created by men !!
It's the words of God delivered to human beings through revelations to prophets . I wish things are clear to u now .
I don't allow a human being to dictate to me my system of life, but I do allow myself to follow the " Words of God " !!

[caddy_caddy]

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.
The modern societies tend to make the individual as its unit not the family ,that's what creates a basic difference between the attitude of the religious societies and others .

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?

I noticed that everyone here speaks of religion as the invention
of men and they forgot the basic thing about religion :what rules in religion is the " words of God " not the words of some human beings .
You are an athesit ; how can you understand how do those
people think if u don't agree with them on the basic issue ?!!

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?

the average age of sexual maturity varies according to time and geographical location .
But the general rule no marriage before sexual maturation.

If Muhammad was the last prophet, then he must have been quite right.

No . There is no relation . It's a matter of belief . We do believe that the Quran is right and everything is mentioned in it concerning Mohammad or others and everyting is 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?
Violating the religious codes that are made for the goodness of human beings.

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"?

It 's a practice of your free will not to violate the moral and religious codes . What it is natural is to follow an order and to achieve a purpose for everyting we do . And sex is no exception . Everything in the universe follows an order and there is a purpose for its existence . We are part of this universe . We are above animals and the best among creatures that what God said .
We cannot degrade ourselves to the level of animals self- abusing our reason and free will .

[blazeofglory]

This raises another interesting point, actually. How do we know what is 'natural' and what is 'cultural' in human behaviour? You suggest that rape is the result of tensions created by the oppressive effects of culture and religion - and that without those influences no one would force themselves sexually on another person.

But one could also argue that it's only the influence of culture and religion that discourages humans from forcing themselves sexually on anyone else. In other words, the conventions of civilisation are designed to prevent rape, and generally speaking that's what they do.

Unfortunately, we don't have a human test group for this - as all humans live, one way or another, in groups that have rules of culture and morality.

My conclusion would be that the very fact that there are no humans who live without these things means that these things are natural to humans. Humans cannot live without culture and a moral structure (which tends to codify itself into religion), any more than koalas can live without eucalyptus trees. That is our natural state.

Our culture is never our natural state. At times cultures, rituals,systems, taboos and the like disable humans. I know at times simple defenseless men are indoctrinated into certain patterns of thinking and will stray into foolhardiness.

I am not always against cultures, but there are certain aspects of cultures that are harmful to the human race. In Hinduism women are treated subserviently as if they are subhumans or beings who are less humans and more animals. One of the great mystics of the east said women must be always beaten tamed or else they become uncontrollable. They must be domesticated. This idea has been codified into a religious belief and later on assimilated into a popular culture.

I can give tens of thousands of such examples in all cultures. That is why I I feel cultures at time cripple humans.

[Paulclem]

Our culture is never our natural state. At times cultures, rituals,systems, taboos and the like disable humans. I know at times simple defenseless men are indoctrinated into certain patterns of thinking and will stray into foolhardiness.

I am not always against cultures, but there are certain aspects of cultures that are harmful to the human race. In Hinduism women are treated subserviently as if they are subhumans or beings who are less humans and more animals. One of the great mystics of the east said women must be always beaten tamed or else they become uncontrollable. They must be domesticated. This idea has been codified into a religious belief and later on assimilated into a popular culture.

I can give tens of thousands of such examples in all cultures. That is why I I feel cultures at time cripple humans.

But what is a human natural state? To compound Mark's point how far away fom this natual state are we? 500,000 years? 1 million years? It's a myth, and to think that we could all go back to this natural state is preposterous. The nearest experiments are communal living which hve invariably ended in tears.

Despite sometimes professing the alternative, humans thrive in order. It is protective - physically and emotionally. It is the evolving of social order that now allows the liberation of women, and has strengthened the position of gay rights.

It's also why I don't give much credence to Bonobo studies and comparisons to other animal groups. They may be fascinating, and closest to humans sexually, but we are removed by a huge amount of time in evolutionary terms.

[MarkBastable]

Our culture is never our natural state. .

What is, then?

[blazeofglory]

What is, then?

When we come out of the shroud of culture and behave following our instincts

[Paulclem]

When we come out of the shroud of culture and behave following our instincts

But isn't culture designed to curtail those very damaging instincts - especially as expressed by groups of young men?

Are you advocating anarchy? You may be a perfectly resectable person Blaze, and so are most people, but there are those who you wouldn't want to allow to follow their instincts.

[blazeofglory]

But isn't culture designed to curtail those very damaging instincts - especially as expressed by groups of young men?

Are you advocating anarchy? You may be a perfectly resectable person Blaze, and so are most people, but there are those who you wouldn't want to allow to follow their instincts.

I seem to advocate anarchy. But our monarchical, democratic or dictatorial regimes have not made our world a better place to live in.

we know dictatorial Hitler or Stalin, both were engaged in genocidal wars. They were of course great idealists, statesmen, formulators political ideologues. Of course in the so called American democratic system George Bush was the Hitler or Stalin Incarnate. Take the example of what he did in Iraq. You may support his idea out of nationalistic spirit. What we call nationalism is a love and hate game.

Of course I support anarchism that does not allow another holocaust or genocide of Hitler.

[Paulclem]

I seem to advocate anarchy. But our monarchical, democratic or dictatorial regimes have not made our world a better place to live in.

we know dictatorial Hitler or Stalin, both were engaged in genocidal wars. They were of course great idealists, statesmen, formulators political ideologues. Of course in the so called American democratic system George Bush was the Hitler or Stalin Incarnate. Take the example of what he did in Iraq. You may support his idea out of nationalistic spirit. What we call nationalism is a love and hate game.

Of course I support anarchism that does not allow another holocaust or genocide of Hitler.

You are talking of national and nationalistic systems, which is different to the discussion in hand. We could discuss that the main difference between Bush and Hitler and Stalin is that one could be, and has been got rid of, whilst the other two - aside from being responsible for mass murderer, as was Mao to an even greater extent - could not easily be displaced. Whatever you think of Bush, he was not responsible for anything like the numbers of the other three.

But are'nt we talking about a more individual level - the effects of anarchy upon individuals? individuals become vulnerable - let alone all the already vulnerable people in society.

[MarkBastable]

When we come out of the shroud of culture and behave following our instincts

But human beings have never lived without a shroud of culture. Never. So what makes you think it's natural?