Race, Gender , and Class

[jambo]

I don't know if it's meant as a literal account as much as a metaphorical one. I think the "can't get it up" part is metaphorical, it's about how in the absence of taboos against sex, many people are unable to be aroused. Doesn't it seem that the more restrictions we place on female sexual expression, the "sexier" most people think life is? Corsets, heels, elaborate courtship etiquette, plastic surgery, make up, etc. Or even on male behaviors? Aggressive, domineering, etc.

Isn't indicative of a basically immature sexuality to only get turned on by what is forbidden? I mean clearly that could be where much of our society is at...

All those fetishes / restrictions are more or less culturally determined, arbitrary to an extent. Obviously there are different customs and criteria for 'attractiveness' in other cultures. Is this supposed to be universally applicable, would Freud say a similar structure exists in the psyche of all human societies?

 

[Mr. Tea]

There are certain orthodox sects in Judaism that wouldn't still exist if it hadn't been for inbreeding. And there are still societies where marriage between first cousins is quite normal. My girlfriend knows a guy whose parents are first cousins - he's an almost stereotypical brainiac with no common sense (particle physicist) and his brother was diagnosed with a brain tumour a year or so ago.

Edit: jambo is clearly a raving lesbian.

 

[jambo]

So you think the incest taboo is entirely culturally determined?

Those small groups are not representative of the broader population in any way and are subject to powerful extra-genetic pressures. Also they could just be getting off on the taboo.

 

[nomadthethird]

Um, so? In times before effective contraception sexuality will have been much more closely tied to reproduction.

So I suggested there was a partly genetic basis for incest taboo. That in the evolutionary process it has been selected for as being genetically advantageous. I don't think it's mutually exclusive with psychological theories.

What makes you think that sexuality was much more closely "tied" to reproduction before "effective contraception" (in ancient China there were very effective forms of contraception...female horse urine was dried and the salts leftover after evaporation, being full of horse estrogen and hormones, were used to make soup that was drunk everyday and worked according to basically exactly the same mechanism of action as the first oral contraceptives in the west)? That's a rather strange assumption to make without challenging it first...

Sexuality among all sorts of primates serves many purposes, including social ones. As it does among some mammals.

If the "genetic" basis of incest taboos meant anything to people before we understood what DNA was, it sure didn't seem like it did. I do think that it's best in terms of genetic viability of offspring if people reproduce with others from different populations/families, but that doesn't mean an incest taboo must necessarily be "inborn" or inherent in humans (or other animals)...

 

[nomadthethird]

Isn't indicative of a basically immature sexuality to only get turned on by what is forbidden? I mean clearly that could be where much of our society is at...

What do you mean by immature sexuality?

 

[jambo]

No it doesn't mean that it's necessarily inborn. I just say that I can see a process whereby it might have been selected for.

I say that sexuality was more closely tied to reproduction before effective contraception in the very straightforward sense that it would have been more closely tied to having babies. It's evolutionary process, you know, in the case of humans most genetic evolution took place a long time ago.

It's an evolutionary process you know. Many deep structural aspects of human psychology are the result of evolution, it would seem.

 

[nomadthethird]

No it doesn't mean that it's inborn. I just say that I can see a process whereby it might have been selected for.

I say that sexuality was more closely tied to reproduction before effective contraception in the very straightforward sense that it would have been more closely tied to having babies.

What do you mean "tied to"? This is what I'm not sure about.

There were certainly homosexuals before we had widely available contraceptives and prophylactics. There were certainly ways to avoid getting pregnant (oral sex, anal sex, the pull out method) in the absence of hormonal birth control. People have always had sex for all sorts of reasons. Yes, female sexual behaviors were usually very strictly policed and limited to sex within a marriage, to the extent that the law/the church could control these things. (In many societies, females who had sex outside of their marriage were killed...their males partners, of course, weren't...)

I'm also not sure what you mean by "selected for"...do you mean evolutionarily over time the taboo against incest came into play because it is best for the species? Because I would have to say that this is not likely according to the actual theory of evolution...

 

[nomadthethird]

Ha, you say "raving lesbian" as if being a lesbian is some sort of mental illness, Mr. Tea.

 

[jambo]

What do you mean by immature sexuality?

Sexuality that is based on an attachment to what is forbidden by 'the father', or the super-ego, or whatever is basically infantile. The structure of our society is pretty infantilising on many levels though so this is totally understandable. And of course it reproduces itself.

 

[nomadthethird]

Sexuality that is based on an attachment to what is forbidden by 'the father', or the super-ego, or whatever is basically infantile. The structure of our society is pretty infantilising on many levels though so this is totally understandable. And of course it reproduces itself.

Why is that immature? It's not infantile, not in psychoanalytical terms. Infantile sexuality is marked by its disregard for the Super-Ego, its "polymorphous perversity." The genital stage, the adult stage, where our desires are channelled and directed toward intercourse primarily, is probably the most restricted by the Super-Ego.

I think it's boring to be really into vanilla sex, but I wouldn't call it immature.

We all have needs based on our own particular psychosexual histories, and there's nothing wrong with any of them, unless they are warped into a need to commit violent (nonconsensual) acts.

 

[jambo]

What do you mean "tied to"? This is what I'm not sure about.

Tied to means....you fuck someone without contraception you more likely get baby. In evolutionary terms for most of our history we no have da contraceptions.

Yes, female sexual behaviors were usually very strictly policed and limited to sex within a marriage, to the extent that the law/the church could control these things. (In many societies, females who had sex outside of their marriage were killed...their males partners, of course, weren't...)

Yes of course this started occurring. Obviously it's harder for males to be sure about the parentage of their offspring, so this is a consequence of a patriarchal tendency.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "selected for"...do you mean evolutionarily over time the taboo against incest came into play because it is best for the species? Because I would have to say that this is not likely according to the actual theory of evolution...

Almost. Not 'came into play' though, it would be like any evolutionarily conferred advantage. The offspring of those who are sensitive to the idea of not fucking immediate relatives (possibly a pheromone reaction?) do somewhat better than those who are not for a number of reasons. Remember it's a fractional process.

 

[nomadthethird]

Tied to means....you fuck someone without contraception you more likely get baby. In evolutionary terms for most of our history we no have da contraceptions.

Yes of course this started occurring. Obviously it's harder for males to be sure about the parentage of their offspring, so this is a consequence of a patriarchal tendency.

Almost. Not 'came into play' though, it would be like any evolutionarily conferred advantage. The offspring of those who are sensitive to the idea of not fucking immediate relatives (possibly a pheromone reaction?) do somewhat better than those who are not for a number of reasons. Remember it's a fractional process.

Don't you mean "if a man has vaginal intercourse with a woman" you get baby (sometimes)? Because there are lots of other kinds of sex.

A "fractional" process? Huh?

Sure, there are going to be pheromonal reasons why you'd be attracted to someone who is as unrelated to you as possible. We've talked about this before on here. But what you're not recognizing is that sex is not, and never has been, solely a means of reproduction. Not in our species, not in any primates.

 

[jambo]

A "fractional" process? Huh?

Yeah you know, gradual. Evolution can result in amazing things due to the tiniest of mutations and the most marginal of pressures, over time.

Sure, there are going to be pheromonal reasons why you'd be attracted to someone who is as unrelated to you as possible. We've talked about this before on here. But what you're not recognizing is that sex is not, and never has been, solely a means of reproduction. Not in our species, not in any primates.

So what, eating food isn't just about getting nutrients but we still instinctively avoid eating things that repulse us. Sex is involved with reproduction (um, clearly), and that's enough. Certainly enough to confer an advantage on the offspring of those men and women who do not have cock-in-vag sex with close relatives, I would suggest.

 

[nomadthethird]

Yeah you know, gradual. Evolution can result in amazing things due to the tiniest of mutations and the most marginal of pressures, over time.

So what, eating food isn't just about getting nutrients but we still instinctively avoid eating things that repulse us. Sex is involved with reproduction (um, clearly), and that's enough. Certainly enough to confer an advantage on the offspring of those men and women who do not have cock-in-vag sex with close relatives, I would suggest.

Actually, food repulsion patterns are very particular to the individual and are based on larger cultural factors and cultural traditions. Most Americans would gag trying to eat fermented tofu in China, for example, but there it's a delicacy.

As for the rest,

What you're saying makes no sense. It's a very commonsensical sort of misunderstanding of what sexuality is with regard to evolution that uses this sort of metonymy where intercourse stands for sexuality, and vaginal intercourse = sex.

There is no reason why people should be "repulsed" by people whom they are not attracted to. The way human attraction works is not according to some "attracted/repulsed" binary. People are not solely attracted to people who would make good reproduction partners. As is evidenced by many diseases (sickle-cell anemia, tay-sachs, etc) that are common in certain ethnic groups and are the result of a man and a woman (who are attracted to each other) reproducing.

Evolution, unfortunately, has not selected out attraction between people who may not make a good genetic match. Attraction is based on many factors in addition to things like pheromones.

There is no reason to believe that people who are sometimes attracted to relatives close enough to be genetically disadvantageous as reproduction partners would not be "preferred" by evolution. In fact, looking at population patterns, we know that many thriving societies were full of the offspring born of first cousins and other family members. This is especially true of pre-modern societies when people were much less mobile than they are now.

 

[jambo]

Actually, food repulsion patterns are very particular to the individual and are based on larger cultural factors and cultural traditions. Most Americans would gag trying to eat fermented tofu in China, for example.

Gosh, I'd never noticed that There are instinctual repulsions to some types of things that are bad to eat. Things that smell a certain way, like rotting things and poop. But anyway.

You said I wasn't recognising that sex is not just about reproduction. That's ridiculous, of course I recognise that. But it's not really relevant because natural selection need not necessarily be entirely rational, efficient and without side effects, as you suggest yourself below.

What you're saying makes no sense. It's a very commonsensical sort of misunderstanding of what sexuality is with regard to evolution that uses this sort of metonymy where intercourse stands for sexuality, and vaginal intercourse = sex.

I don't think that for one second. Reproduction as a consequence of sex is one of the factors involved.

There is no reason why people should be "repulsed" by people whom they are not attracted to. The way human attraction works is not according to some "attracted/repulsed" binary. People are not solely attracted to people who would make good reproduction partners. As is evidenced by many diseases (sickle-cell anemia, tay-sachs, etc) that are common in certain ethnic groups and are the result of a man and a woman (who are attracted to each other) reproducing.

I mentioned repulsion in relation to food. We are talking about the incest taboo.

Evolution, unfortunately, has not selected out attraction between people who may not make a good genetic match. Attraction is based on many factors in addition to things like pheromones.

Yes nomadthesecond, evolution is not perfect and attraction is complex. Thanks for that. This doesn't exclude the possibility that evolution could be a factor in the basis of the incest taboo.

There is no reason to believe that people who are sometimes attracted to relatives close enough to be genetically disadvantageous as reproduction partners would not be "preferred" by evolution. In fact, looking at population patterns, we know that many thriving societies were full of the offspring born of first cousins and other family members. This is especially true of pre-modern societies when people were much less mobile than they are now.

We also know that culture is a very strong factor in human societies, to the extent of going well against our best interests or even deepest evolved instincts.

 

[jambo]

Before this goes too much further into the realms of repetition can I just say that little brief googling suggests that there are various conflicting ideas about this and it is still a developing area.

Seems there's probably both a biological factor and cultural factors involved. I don't see why the psychology as observed could not be a result of both of these.

 

[nomadthethird]

Double yawn. Yes nomadthesecond, evolution is not perfect and attraction is complex. Thanks for that. This doesn't exclude the possibility that evolution could be a factor in the basis of the incest taboo.

We also know that culture is a very strong factor in human societies, to the extent of going well against our best interests or even deepest evolved instincts.

You're the one who ASKED, then ASSUMED THERE WAS ONE, and then DIDN'T SUPPLY ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM.

Please, by all means, regale us with your scientific account of how the "incest taboo" is a byproduct of biological factors in human evolution and not cultural ones.

How do you know "culture" goes against our "deepest evolved instincts" and our "best interests" (I wonder who gets to decide what these are), and isn't, in fact, simply a sort of "deepest evolved instinct" in and of itself that evolved as humans organized in groups as part of what was "in their best interests"?

You make these really broad claims, over and over, in many different threads, and then when anyone questions them, you try to act as if that person is out of line somehow.

If you have an argument to make about the evolutionary origins of the incest taboo, make it. You still haven't made one that's at all coherent.

 

[nomadthethird]

before this goes too much further into the realms of repetition can i just say that little brief googling suggests that there are various conflicting ideas about this and it is still a developing area.

duh

 

[nomadthethird]

You said I wasn't recognising that sex is not just about reproduction. That's ridiculous, of course I recognise that. But it's not really relevant because natural selection need not necessarily be entirely rational, efficient and without side effects, as you suggest yourself below.

No, this is relevant, because evolution is not an entirely linear straightforward "efficient" process, especially when it comes to sexuality and its evolutionary effects...

 

[jambo]

You're the one who ASKED, then ASSUMED THERE WAS ONE, and then DIDN'T SUPPLY ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM.

Assumed there was one what? I had an understanding that it was thought there might partly be a biological basis for the incest taboo and we have been talking about that.

Proof and evidence, sure, I'm not trying to prove a point I thought it was a discussion. I'm sure there's some stuff out there, in fact a quick search brought up some interesting looking books and papers. Have you provided proof and evidence that biology is absolutely not a factor? Have I asked you to?

Please, by all means, regale us with your scientific account of how the "incest taboo" is a byproduct of biological factors in human evolution and not cultural ones.

Seems some people think that the incest taboo might have at least a partly biological basis.

You make these really broad claims, over and over, in many different threads, and then when anyone questions them, you try to act as if that person is out of line somehow.

Actually that's exactly what you seem to do. Projecting?

If you have an argument to make about the evolutionary origins of the incest taboo, make it. You still haven't made one that's at all coherent.

I've explained what I mean. It was just a suggestion, an idea, a question, a subject to throw around.

I think it might be the case that there is partly a biological basis for the incest taboo, but I'm not sure, I don't know. I think I've provided a fairly good account of how this might occur. You on the other hand seem to be utterly convinced of whatever it is that you believe to the exclusion of even considering anything else as being reasonable. I haven't asked for it because I'm not arguing but where is your coherent water-tight argument that biology absolutely plays no part whatsoever in being the basis for the incest taboo?