I would say–yeah and it’s not just because I’m Old.
Infantilizing sex, encouraging recreational sex, irresponsible sex, is a public health problem, but also a cultural problem that produces unhappy people.
Stable family based society is going the way of the Dodo Bird.
Stan: kin selection (non-filial infanticide and kin altruism) is a very widespread reproductive strategy. The key point to understand is that killing other males’ offspring does not favour that particular lion, it favours his genes. The fact that so many forms of life behave that way — from microscopic ones to humans — suggests that it gives them a very strong reproductive advantage.
Male Lions, upon taking over a pride, will kill juvenile lions still dependent upon their mothers so that the females will go into heat sooner and the new Pride Leader can mate with them. Mark one up for “reproductive advantage” for killing infants.
Since we’re all learning here, Robert Sapolsky offers a great resource. His idea of teaching social biology is first to identify the dominant thinking modes (or influential schools of thought), get comfortable with them (to get a sense of how convincing a faulty argument can be), and then trash them with counter-examples.
Jump in here to sample some of that spectacular trashing, take a listen for the next 30 minutes, then go to the start of the course and find out what it’s all about. Great stuff.
Note that he does not seem to know about bonobos (or did not know in 2010). I believe if he knew, his commentary on the influence of exogamous females would change. Knowledge travels in waves, never settling in a steady state.
Smokey, I am aware of professionally trained killers’ reluctance to kill, but I think such reluctance is only felt in long-distance engagement, when a human target is visible. I doubt it has anything to do with instincts. The situation is too new for any instincts to have developed. I have seen people through a rifle scope and know the feeling. Bombers don’t feel anything like it, neither do infantrymen in close combat.
But when you’re head-to-head with an enemy, instincts do kick in. I never happened to kill anyone (that I know of), but I had a few situations where I was very close and 100% ready. It is hard to describe the feeling precisely; it is a combination of shock, rage, and determination. It is accompanied by “tunnel vision” and a very convincing sense of near-infinite muscle power available for the action (I hear, all of that is caused by stress hormones). Having discovered how powerful this condition is, I took on a habit of walking away from emergent conflicts, lest I get wound up to a dangerous level.
So I don’t think killing when threatened or cornered is not a problem, not for me, anyway. Going on the offensive, especially on somebody else’s behalf, may very well be.
There is a culture that promotes good things, family, civility, the value of life, the importance of liberty the responsibility that comes with that liberty to be a positive and functional member of society.
Sexuality is a strong factor in any culture, and proper discipline of the animal in us for a higher purpose of civility and culture cannot be ignored.
I read a wonderful book about the civilizing influence of the Judeo Christian religions from the Politically Incorrect Guide series.
the PIGuide to the Bible pointed out the infanticide was widespread and sexual mores and attitude about family and marriage were quite different in pagan times.
I would not be limited in my consideration to the civilizing influence of Judeo Christian attitudes, Taoism, Buddhism, and other respected religions are civilizing. There is also a secular, if you will, Natural Law/Humanistic tradition that can be traced to the ancients–particularly in Wester Civ–the Greeks.
Barbarism is different, isn’t it? There is a civilization and culture that is founded on higher aspirations.
Did you know that the pursuit of happiness was articulated by Aristotle as living a virtuous and worthwhile life that is constructively committed to being a positive member of society. We are social beings.
I can tell you I am proud to be associated with physicians in the army but that same pride comes from my association with other professions adn professionals who serve the community and society and live responsible adult lives.
Not much to be said about the selfish or the uncharitable or the vicious (as in without virtue).
In every ancient culture for which we can find extensive documentation this same argument comes up. It’s just another variation of “kids these days”. From what I’m seeing, attitudes about casual sex and the permanence of marriage have been improving over the last decade. The widespread knowledge of STDs coupled with the bad memories us children from broken homes harbor are leading to a generation that’s, if anything, more careful about sexual relationships than our parents were.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm
The fact that the marriage rate is going down at the same time as divorce rates is an indication that people aren’t jumping into bad marriages without thinking through the consequences as often as they used to.
I watched in horror when AIDS first appeared in the US. The entire effort was never to stop the spread of it. The entire effort was to make homosexuality and casual sex acceptable, “remove the stigma”. The results are history.
Or you could say that, to a Christian it has never been arbitrary because the code of conduct passed down by God is very explicit in what it does and does not allow. Understanding is not achieved by saying there is nothing to categorize, that leads to the idea that there is nothing. There are fundamental and absolute laws. Gravity does not exist whether we want it to or not, whether we label it a law or not. Post-modern thought is a black hole, or is that too much of a category?
To the idea that Christian views of sexuality are a cause of success you are missing the forest for the trees, the success of the West, and all of its achievements, are due to the presence of the Church. The family structure, the retention of knowledge and the adherence to law are all fundamentally church aspects of European life. Without the church there is also no understanding of classic literature and the ancients. All that knoweldge that was preserved through the Dark Ages was done because of monks.
The obvioud abstract to that would be, Western Europe in the Dark Ages was pitiful except for presence of the Church while China, India and the Middle Ease all enjoyed far more luxury and a much higher standard of living. Yet in six hundred years Europe was the undisputed ruler of the rest of the world, and as an effect Christian beliefs spread with them. To say that it was at the cost of peasants or slaves is again to miss greatly the ideas that spread with them. But I am coming to a conclusion that none of that matters to you.
“In humans, until recently, such safeguard had not been necessary, so “thou shalt not kill” is a weapons-age, externally communicated heuristic. Properly translated, it means “For your own safety, to do not threaten your mates”. It works most of the time, but not nearly as well as in animals that have this moral principle built into them.”
Actually, there is quite a bit of research showing that unless specifically trained — as we discussed above — people have an instinctive impulse NOT to kill one another. This is why, for instance, the U.S. Army went to human-shaped targets instead of the round bull’s-eyes used to train pre-Korean War soldiers.
It is entirely possible that this effect has nothing to do with killing a member of one’s own species and everything to do with the fact that humans simply aren’t perfect circles so there’s no sense training to shoot at such. On the other hand, those with no training or experience are also reluctant*, by and large, to aim killing force knowingly at another person, whether with a bat, knife, firearm or fist.
*(Unless, sufficiently motivated, of course, or simply psychopathic. There’s always an exception, as you pointed out.)
Certainly, for every maxim, there is an exception — either known or waiting to be discovered.
Infanticide is not the same as fighting to death. Killing an infant confers zero risk and it can even result in a reproductive advantage, while the odds of killing a lethally equipped peer are not as certain. There seems to be a inherent prohibition in predators, including lions, against killing their own kind. In humans, until recently, such safeguard had not been necessary, so “thou shalt not kill” is a weapons-age, externally communicated heuristic. Properly translated, it means “For your own safety, to do not threaten your mates”. It works most of the time, but not nearly as well as in animals that have this moral principle built into them.
Smokey, we’re totally in agreement regarding social mores and their benefits. I jumped at John’s “Hypersexual Culture” as it appeared oxymoronic to me. Culture is always suppressive (for all the reasons we’ve mentioned), so what John appears to be saying is that culture today is a bit more relaxed than it was when he was young — possibly reverting to wild type, and the wild type itself is not “hypersexual” in any way — it was good enough to get us where we are, many aspects of our behaviour are similar to those of our existing relatives, and we are not exceptional in any way.
The point of my example of stretching out at the loss of balance was to show that detrimental traits can linger possibly forever as long as they are not deleterious. We still have mechanisms, alive and kicking, that were once useful to our brachiating ancestors but are dangerous and even lethal in a biped, under some circumstances. Because such circumstances are rare and do not threaten entire populations, we’re going to have to deal with them for a very long time. Our bodies are full of such defects, and that is why culture is not to be taken for granted. It is more difficult to be cultured than to be wild, and no society is inherently stable. Those that do appear to be more stable than others more closely resemble the wild type.
“* Is their behaviour at that moment rational or automatic?
* Does the reaction you observe help them recover?”
Are you saying the urge to mate is just as hard to sublimate or ignore as putting a hand out when falling? And that allowing that urge free reign in most cases is beneficial? In that case, does that not mean that I — if the mood strike me — should be able to mate with any female I am attractive enough (or strong enough) to cause to submit to mating, no questions asked?
Is your position, then, that human beings have no control over their instinctual urges? Or that they really shouldn’t bother trying even if they do? If the former is the case, then let us be armed to the teeth and have at each other until only the strong are left to take and keep all that they desire; if the latter, then I submit that you are perhaps incorrect, and that perhaps social custom, however seemingly arbitrary, has a natural, evolutionarily beneficial place in the human genome.
One can argue about how social pressures are now trying (and have always tried) to override the instinctual, and yet humans manage successfully to do so far more often than not; if our somatal instincts were really that difficult to overcome, I submit that rape, infanticide and murder would not be crimes — they would be accepted risks/practices of living humans.
My point is that society and its mores are far from being “artificial;” that in fact they are no moreso than those of any other natural grouping of any other social animal, primates included. As you point out, “Not all of those somatic wirings are beneficial to us,” and so as social creatures our tribes (so to speak) have developed certain customs, practices and standards which the tribe’s members are expected to follow for the benefit of the group, despite their individual instincts.
“It takes a lot of effort and training to override instincts.”
One might argue that we begin receiving that exact training from birth, are not considered adults until a dozen (or two) or more years have gone by, and never stop receiving “refresher training,” if you will, throughout our entire lives. I would also agree with you: that is a LOT of training. I would also suggest that there is a reasonable evolutionary explanation for that energy investment, and would argue with the position that the resulting social mores are “artificial,” however “arbitrary” they may seem on the surface.
The adaptation to community living benefits individuals as well as the entire species, and sexual rules* are but one part of such adaptation. That those mores change from place to place and population to population is evidence that those rules are learned and not instinctive; that nearly every human population has such a set of rules indicates that the need for them may be based in something far more fundamental.
*(Please note that I have to this point made no mention of any specific rule, or set of such, I simply submit that the ones we do have may be of considerably more benefit than having none at all.)
The idea of deviance is characteristic of categorical thinking, which is, by definition, relative. Categories are always arbitrary. Categorical thinking is a great tool for quick decision-making and it may be critical for survival, but it is not good at all if you want to understand things.
The idea of arbitrariness is also relative, especially as applied to Christians. You can always argue they were able to achieve something by suppressing mating behaviour in certain groups of people; the question is whether you agree with the intended goals of that suppression and its results. Another question is whether they suppressed peasants and slaves in the same way as they did monarchs and high priests. Yet another question: if you think the success of the British Empire, for example, had anything to do with Christian views on sexuality and mating, prove it. To the exclusion of all other factors, if possible.
Relativism, in all its forms, especially moral is a sign of societal weakness. A society that holds nothing in high value has nothing of value to offer. Sexual deviance is considered deviant for a reason. People can argue that base animilistic instincts are the only measure by which to gauge the behavior of people and they greatly miss the point of civilization. As for those who think that religions, or in a particular case Christians, supress sexual behavior for an arbitrary reason ask yourselves why it was that the Christian West was able to dominate the globe up until the time that secularism began to take hold.
Gene: “The deadliest predators never fight each other for real.”
Look up Lions. When a young Lion wants to take over a pride, there is nothing “fake” about the assault he carries out on the leader, and his pragmatic (but by human standards cruel) elimination of the prior leader’s offspring is nothing short of infanticide.
What you call the law of the jungle is how your body is wired. There is a bit of a misdirection in the jungle metaphor: it is not a law in the sense most people will recognise; it is organic and inheritable.
Not all of those somatic wirings are beneficial to us. I would even venture a guess that most are harmful. But they are often stronger than the rules you impose externally, and more importantly, they compute faster. It takes a lot of effort and training to override instincts.
Sexual coercion and one of its forms, infanticide, raise interesting questions. Intuitively, we perceive them as horrific abnormalities and hope to be rid of them one date, but note how widespread they are taxonomically. How did the ocean end up with the same “law” as the jungle? There must be some adaptive value in these kinds of behaviour.
Murder (killing an adult of the same species) is different. It appears to be unique to humans. Other animals are seldom lethal in their fights against each other. Note your idea of using a rock or a Magnum. Why not your teeth? The general observation is that the more lethal an species is “by design” (e.g., poisonous snakes, lions), the less violent their squabbles are. The deadliest predators never fight each other for real. Humans are extremely violent — they are right there with bulls, cocks and squirrels. Combine this built-in tendency to resolve disputes by fighting with the unrestricted use of lethal weapons and you get a problem that no other animal has. One more of those pesky evolutionary mishaps that needs to be controlled by a thought process. How stable is that?
Finally, you call us (no doubt mockingly) swinging’ primates. Note what humans do with their hands (and the rest of their bodies) when they lose balance and fall (slip on ice, &c.). Ask yourself two questions:
* Is their behaviour at that moment rational or automatic?
* Does the reaction you observe help them recover?
I don’t think it’s because you are old you think the way you do. It’s because you wish to medicalize culture practices and so eliminate the practices that do not fit your own cultural practices..
I have lived and worked in 15 countries on all continents except Australia and Antarctica. I have taken an anthropological as well as personal interest in sexual practices both in modern times and in times past.
Some sexual practices that are criminalized in Western society have been considered a duty in other societies, or optional, or an idiosyncrasy to be tolerated. Some sexual practices common in Western societies are taboo, hidden because shameful, or banned by other societies, sometimes under pain of death.
When the Christian missionaries first encountered the sexual practices of non-European cultures they claimed that the “savages” were violating the laws of God and had to be converted. Never mind that the cultures of some of the “savages” were older and more civilized (as in urbanized) than those that produced the Western explorers and conquerors.
Now of course, we don’t have religion to beat other cultures with, so we use psychology, sociology and medicine to establish sexual norms. The antidote to cultural chauvinism is to read widely in cultural anthropology.
You may still believe that certain sexual practices should be outlawed. But after acquiring a background in anthropology you will see that restricting the behaviour of other people is a political choice.
Modern Western societies do rather well at balancing the needs of various sub-cultures. The problem is as always how to achieve balance between the needs of individuals, sub-cultures and the nation state. .
https://xkcd.com/592/
I wonder. Do they?
Yep, we’re all just apes here, just some swingin’ primates with a slightly above average intelligence quotient. So, hey, if that young hottie ‘cross the way is willing, do her for all she’s worth, my man. It’s only natural.
Of course, if her lover (or any other male, for that matter) decides he wants “to isolate (her) from other males” by using a rock on your head (or, for preference, a .357 Magnum), sorry but that’s just the law of the jungle, dude. That, too, is only natural; it’s only our “artificial civilization” which criminalizes things like ‘rape’ and ‘murder.’
The rules of society (regardless of the society in question) have reasons for existing, and it’s not always just because some uptight shmoes with small penises have nothing better to do than make sure other people don’t have any fun either.
recreational sex is not the problem. The problem is the moralising going on that makes people feel guilty about it afterwards.
And the entitlement culture that makes people do anything they want without being willing to accept the consequences of their actions.
Ah, yes. They do it every time we would give a high five. Unlike humans, they also do it instead of fighting or to reconcile after a brief altercation.
I wouldn’t say their society is female-dominated. It will be more correct to say they are egalitarian, although there is genetic evidence showing their families and clans are patrilineal. Females leave their ancestral family to bond with another, unrelated family. I presume that is how they maintain a sufficiently high recombination rate.
This article about bonobos has a synopsis of social organisation patterns of some primates near the bottom:
http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html
I think you will find the Bonobos arguably or closest living relatives don’t have a mating season either. This is a female dominated society where everyone has sex with everyone else, in all possible combinations, all the time.
Muslims live in a very stable family-based society that is not going anywhere.
It’s not Culture, it’s Nature. We are the only apes (and perhaps the only ones in the whole of animal kingdom) that don’t have a mating season. We can mate any time, almost without limits. We can have as many women as we’re able to isolate from other males. For many of us, that number is one; for others, many; for yet others, zero. All our ancestors up to a few generations ago were polygamous, and the most recent of our instincts were shaped by life in small tribes ruled by dominant males. Happiness was not on the menu. It is an artificial concept, as is public health.
I doubt other apes that live today worry about happiness much. Eat, avoid being eaten, have children, protect them, protect your territory, intimidate others — these are the first-order imperatives. Fun is optional.
Like everything artificial, civilisation needs maintenance. You contradict yourself when you say “Stable family based society is going the way of the Dodo Bird”. It has never been stable, in the first place. If it were, we wouldn’t hear you lament its demise.