Marriage

Quote :

Christianity and Islam have created a sense of shame surrounding sex.

Yes, and the list probably longer than those two.

I mean to keep using my example. If you lose control over your physical appetite, well you just get fat in some stern islamic societies.

If you lose control over your sexual appetite, you can get stoned.

And it's especially worse for women.

I mean, like AVerrroes said the problem with obesity is not McDonalds, it's the people who go into McDonalds eat (i.e. me and my son).

But with islam and other religions it basically doesn't use the same logic.

I guess the logic is that if a women's sexuality is not strictly conceiled, it could impair a man's ability to be chaste.

Yet, of course, like a man must have control over his appetite or he'll get fat, a man must also have control over his sexual appetite.

On the other hand, if you analyze what people are eating it can definitely be an indicator whether optimum health is being maintained in a society, which it isn't in ours, obviously with obesity being a huge problem in Canada and I guess in the U.S.

And so, I think as Averroes is suggesting, if you look at sexuality in our society it can also reflect whether optimum health is being maintained. And I agree with Averroes that optimum sexuality is definitely not being maintained in our society, when you look at the video games and music videos out there, and the fact that hard core porn is now easily accessible through your cable.

And so not to get off topic, but I'm still mulling over a healthy sexuality. Certainly, I think PA's last post is obviousy succinct that a healthy sexuality is not just good for a healthy body, mind and spirt, but indeed ESSENTIAL.

Aaron wrote:

As an individualist and a free-thinker how do you feel about the institution of marriage and family? Do you think it's possible that the concept of marriage is outdated in a modern world?

I understand the issue you present.

I am an individualist who has recently proposed to a devote catholic woman. We are enganged, but the religious aspects may never allow us to be married in the way we both really I want.

I hope with time we will get through to each other more and more, because we do both love each, and are good for each other. We just see the world a through different eyes....

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Averroes, I believe promiscuity isn't inherently wrong or equivalent with prostitution. I don't believe it is harmful in and of itself, but may be an indication of shallow character if none of one's relationships go any deeper.

Quote :

You mean like Giuliani?

Yes, Giuliani, Limbaugh and Gingrich too, if their actions caused the divorce. If one cheats on one's spouse, they'll cheat on others as well. I do make a distinction between divorce and infidelity.

PA, I don't judge you and your individual situation, but I only point out the damage caused by divorce to the children--THE reason for marriage. I don't see a real problem if divorce occurs before children, but after, it is usually devastating, and increases the likelihood of divorce on to the next generation.

My wife and I were oceans apart philosophically when we married, and that gulf has widened since. But we were physically attracted, and we believed very strongly in our commitment to our children through the family. That was enough to get us to accentuate the things we do have in common which helps to allow for our differences which always exist in any relationship if we aren't stamped out by a cookie cutter.

As I've said, family and the raising of children is the primary reason for marriage, but there's an added benefit that's almost as important. It was a line from a movie that I don't remember, but another reason for the marriage bond is that we have someone who is an intimate witness to our life. That has stuck with me over the years since I heard it, and I believe it to be true now more than ever--but it is probably negated by living a hidden life of infidelity or remaining otherwise remote.

This, like so many other problems, goes back to not guiding our heart with our heads. Love is not an emotion, it is a commitment supported by emotions. Encourage those you have influence with to forget about star crossed, meant to be, "love" at first sight and to wait at least a couple of years together so you can really know the person you're about to promise to spend the rest of your life with; and that you're marrying them for who they are, not what you plan to change them into.

I hereby conclude this sermon.
Amen.

Just so you know, cause I think you will care, my fiance and I were together for about 3.5 years before I popped the question (in the middle of a nice restaurant). We lived together for a year, but have not in the past 2 years, and our next move will likely be to buy a house together. As you probably know, its very different when one person owns the house, so we believe we will be much better off when we both do.

Time will tell...

Aaron wrote:

Uriah wrote:

Sex, in this new age, becomes less of a spiritual thing, and more of a material thing. Less religious and more directly cultural.

I would argue that perhaps the opposite is true. Rather then having sex for the express purpose of procreation as in traditional society, in this new-age/post-modern society, sex between life partners becomes more of a way to share intimacy and love (on top of filling the need for carnal lust from time to time).

I guess one can make the same argument about procreation as well. Rather then having children out of material need, one has children out of want and love.

You make a good point, it is logically sound, but the problem I have with it - and I initially thought the same thing - is that the real world doesn't seem to bear it out. Instead, it does seem that the commodification of sex, and the disregarding of cultural traditions surrounding sexual relations, have turned the sexual relationship, and more importantly the sexual libido of your average first-worlder, into simply another means to entertain and enthrall the masses. Sex - in the manner it interacts with society - is now more like a drug than anything else.

Quote :

You make a good point, it is logically sound, but the problem I have with it - and I initially thought the same thing - is that the real world doesn't seem to bear it out. Instead, it does seem that the commodification of sex, and the disregarding of cultural traditions surrounding sexual relations, have turned the sexual relationship, and more importantly the sexual libido of your average first-worlder, into simply another means to entertain and enthrall the masses. Sex - in the manner it interacts with society - is now more like a drug than anything else.

Actually, I think you both can be right. Because Aaron is talking about the possibilities on an individual level of healthy sex; and Uriah is quite correctly pointing out that on a societal level a healthy sexuality seems in short supply.
But it's like our Christmas discussion. Because Christmas is overcommercialized to the point of almost drowning it, it doesn't meant that individuals can't have meaninful Christmas observances.

And this, I believe is also Averroes overriding point on sexuality.
What is healthy sexuality on the individual level;
what constitutes a healthy sexuality on a societal level; that is, what practices would best lead to a healthy sexuality on an individual level. And then you would also have to get into whether societal control, presumably through government, should be excercised.

The Libertarains would probably say only those controls that protect individual life and liberty should be exercised, and I might be inclined to agree.

Let's use fast food as an anaolgy, which I've been doing on this string. For instance, I think there's talk in ONtario of banning trans-fats in fast food, for instance. There's talk in banning fast food and junk food from public schools.

So with sexuality there would seem to be two related topics.

One what is a healthy sexuality for the indivdual; and for the society.

Two what controls should society be able to exert in the area of sexuality.

For instance, in the muslim world incredible control in exercised over sexuality particular as it relates to women. Almost to the point of mysogeny, I think.

What these societies fail to realize is that when sexuality becomes a natural part of yourself and your society then all the sudden it doesn't have to be kept hidden and smouldering under a veil. And certainly one sex shouldn't have to unfairly carry the burden of mainting a supposedly healthy sexuality at the societal level.

Helium wrote:

One what is a healthy sexuality for the indivdual; and for the society.

Two what controls should society be able to exert in the area of sexuality.

Both questions are important, but lets just focus on the first one, for now.

Fair enough, we can address healthy sexuality in the individual.

A healthy sexuality in an individual is enabled when both partners are able to turn each other on in a consenting fashion, and in such a fashion that turning themselves on does not endanger life or limb!
And I suppose in such a fashion that any byproducts of this union are lovingly looked after.

Troubles always arises when this is not the case.

Here’s my experience.

Once upon a time you thought it was just about finding that one in a million; that someone that was made especially for you.

So your hormone teenaged infested eyes would glance for that look, and then you’d see it, and that would send the heart a fluttering.

For most average guys, bordering on losers, of course, it never panned out.

So good golly, you asked yourself, you’ve seen what is surely your heart’s desire, and yet the lead turned as cold as the January snows.

After countless such experiences, you finally convince yourself, yes, something is wrong. Either the world or you.

At first you figure it must be the world.

Then suddenly a thought strikes you.

Well what if the opposite sex also operates by the same criteria, looking for that one in a million, that one and only.

The dichotomy is that all the sudden your role has changed. You can no longer just be an observer in this process. I.E. it can’t just work that you’re an observer in this process, that when you see this fleeting fairy that bestirs your mind and sets your heart a flutter that the one and only has been found.
No, all the sudden, if you take into account that the opposite sex has similar modus operendis, then all the sudden you’re suddenly thrust into a position where observer status just doesn’t cut it, and that you have to perform.

It is my belief that a lot of violence occurs from males who never get beyond observer status, thinking that the problem of ‘love’ is to observe the ‘one in a million’.

This observing type of love will usually always lead to heartache, and, I believe, if the person gets stuck and has issues, to violence. The only way it can lead to a productive relationship is if the observer becomes an actor, and becomes to their significant someone, what they expect their significant someone to be to them.

One book that was instrumental in helping me understand this many moons ago was Erich Fromm’s the Art of Loving.

To me this is almost my Bible although I haven’t read it in a while.

Is anyone aware of this book?

I think it is only fair to say that if one grants the premise that marriage is the predominantly preferred way of coupling for an individual's psychosexual health and the welfare of the future generations, then your observations are deadon.

I finished reading the Quran with my father (who then used to hold a discussion afterwards encouraging both his sons to ask questions and openly discuss anything and everything--except for sex, of course) and therein we came across a passage that commands the believers to not leave their wives as if hanging in a loop, and then it says, and I parapharse: It may be that God has placed much good in what maynot be pleasing to your desire/eyes and that what may attract you may not be so good for you.

My father explained this verse in quite detail (and on occasion he brought it up with regards to my training as a future husband) stating that one ought not marry a woman for her appearance; he said that after six months of marriage when the honeymoon period is over (which is another way of saying that after you've had your fill with sexual encounters several times a day, especially for those who are virgins on their wedding beds) then you want a wife who wants to make you come home immediately after work to be with her and your children with her, and not one that would make you prolong your stay at the office or make you crave the late night company of friends.
In other words, successful marriages are never based upon looks/sex, but upon mutually compatable values and ambitions. They need not be the same, but they must compliment each other.


A teacher of mine once gave me a book to read, written by Erich Fromm, The Anatomy of Destructiveness, which is quite an impressive work except for its failed attempted to reinterpret communism as biophilic and capitalism as necrophilic; however, it did give me the first insight into the mind set of the deep ecologists and fanatical environmentalist and why they often admire men such as Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, or Castro.
I'm quite sure that that Art of Love must have been a great book, if only because Fromm's ideas are quite in depth and well researched and over the years I've incorporated a lot of his ideas, even as I may have significantly reinterpreted them.

Here is an excerpt from a Congressional Testimony by a CATO researcher (CATO is a very prestigious Washington Think Tank with solid Libertarian credentials)
www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Quote :

My name is Michael Tanner and I am the director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee on an issue of extreme importance to the American people. There is no doubt that juvenile crime is a serious and continuing problem in this country. There are many factors contributing to the rise in juvenile violence and crime, from the glorification of violence in the media to the failure of the "war on drugs." But, today, I would like to focus on a factor that has received far less attention -- the relationship between the welfare state and crime.

Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)

Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)

As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:

The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)

I thought this article was relevant to the discussion on marriage. In my opinion without a taboo on promiscuity we cannot save marriage, and based upon predominant academic research I'd say that without marriage the greater welfare of our society is placed in serious jeapordy.

Here are some other articles that I found online that I think may help us advance our understanding of the issue:

www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/BG1026.cfm


www.divorcereform.org/crime.html

Quote :

A survey of 108 rapists undertaken by Raymond A. Knight and Robert A. Prentky revealed the 60 percent came from female-headed homes,. 70 percent of those describable as 'violent' came from female-headed homes. 80 percent of those motivated by 'displaced anger' came from female-headed (single-parent) homes.
"No-Fault Divorce: Proposed Solutions to a National Tragedy," 1993 Journal of Legal Studies 2, 19, citing R. Knight and R. Prentky, The Developmental Antecedents and Adult Adaptations of Rapist Subtypes, 14 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR 403-426 (1987).

www.heritage.org/Research/Family/CDA02-04.cfm

Quote :

Effect of Marriage on Child Poverty

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/11/981104144839.htm

Quote :

study showing that remarriage is better than single parentage after divorce

I want to continue discussion on this subject....
So let me ask y'all: What is your view on prostitution? Do you think it is necessary for the healthy function of a society? Would you encourage your own children to engage in it professionally? And if you'd feel a sense of shame or anger, is it only because of social reasons, or is there something to that profession that arouses feeling of jealosy and envy at a primordial level, within our reptelian-mammalian brains, that makes our cerebrum rationalize our sentiments by placing cultural taboo on prostitution and promiscuity? Is it simply our chauvinism or is there a demonstrable harm to society (especially family) via open acceptance of prostitution and/or promiscuity?

I want to read your personal opinions, and annecdotal evidence, since none here would've researched the issue in a systematic way.

Wow, we're sure covering a lot of ground here!

Let me say I have never used a prostitute. And I honestly do not state that fact in a perjorative sense, it is not supposed to mean anything one way or the other.

Let me also quote from a famous pop song.

Just a c'mon from the whores on seventh avenue.
I do believe there were times when I was so lonesome I took some comfort there.

Logically, I suppose the sin was there in my mind.

I must have a point and if I do I'll get to it later, Averroes.

Meanwhile, Merry Christmas!

Your right. I've never studied it but I see alot of prostitutes on the streets (some I know by name). There is nothing healthy about it. Most of these girls and a growing number of boys come from abusive homes and get addicted to drugs to escape the psychological pain.

Many of them are "cutters". They intentionally disfigure themselves because in thier eyes they are worthless. Pimps take advantage of this and exploit them for money. They are true slaves in my opinion.

I see nothing good in prostitution but if it were legal it could be regulated and the explotation stopped. It would also reduce the number of STDs in my opinion because they would have better access to treatment. Lastly instead of wasting money on a war that can't be won the taxes generated could be used to get these people into therapy where they belong instead of jail where they just sink deeper into hopelessness.

Naturally. leave it to stret to have the word from the street.

And I'll buy it.

I'll go with his solution.

Cheers!

Stretmediq wrote:

There is nothing healthy about it. Most of these girls and a growing number of boys come from abusive homes and get addicted to drugs to escape the psychological pain

I'll agree with you with regards to what are known as the 'street walkers.' However, and not withstanding an abused childhood, this does not seem to be the situation for the women that are working either as upscale call girls, or even at massage parlors or strip clubs (NOTE: In my opinion strippers are no different than hookers; it is much like the false distinction made by Clinton that somehow getting a blowjob is not the same as having sex as long as there is no vaginal penetration). Women in these professions seem to be able to ward of much violence and manipulation that comes with getting involved with thugs and pimps on the streets. They can further dissociate themselves from drugs, if they so choose to, given that their professions are not regulated by thugs and pimps.

In otherwords, consider a pornstar: Clearly such a woman is generally making good money (more than working as an average accountant or sales manager); almost always involved with safe sex to the extent that the industry and the women in it try to ensure that none of the actors are diseased; and can easily stay off drug abuse (subject to a valid criticism that perhaps the demeaning nature of that profession subconsciously derives women towards drug and alcohol abuse). So then, would one encourage or even accept ones daughter (or son) as a pornographic actor?

And the real question is, do women who are brought up in a healthy nurturing family with a high sense of self esteem, do they ever want to be pornographists or prostitutes? And if not, then is it merely the strong taboos against such a profession or perhaps there is something innately wrong within that profession?

The real question is: What is wrong with prostitution, pornography, or sex massage therapy?
And how do you distinguish that from the everyday norm of "hooking up" where folks in bars and clubs are looking for one night stands?

In my opinion temporary coupling (or friends with benefits) is not much different than prostitution; after all, there are several kinds of prostitutes--some of whom become mistresses, while others dedicate themselves only to a select list of clintele. So, clearly their behavior is not much different than those ordinary men and women who may act similarly but without any overt financial transactions.
But then, focus on money wrongfully shifts the focus away from the behavior itself. Ultimately, all sexual encounters (including marriage) involve money, and those who focus on it often end up confusing marriage with prostitution--as is the case with many radical feminists.

I've been doing a lot of reading on the subject lately, and here are some internet sources that I think could help further our understanding of the subject:

Here is an interesting article on the economics of prostitution:
www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/2006/02/11/economics-prostitution-marriage_cx_mn_money06_0214prostitution.html


Following article addresses the decrminalization of prostitution in England, and is written with a Libertarian bias which makes it a legal issue; however, it also focuses on the sociology of it:
www.liberator.net/articles/prostitution.html


And here is a very interesting site that defends prostitution unabashedly and in ways so unique that you'd be left baffled for words:
www.sexwork.com/family/contents.html

NOTE: I must warn you that this is site has some pornography on it, with a father telling the tale of his daughters and his wife engaged as professional prostitutes.
It shook me to the core, to say the least; not to mention that the narrator does not seem to realize that the whole thing began as child abuse with a bastard of a priest committing fraud by violating his voluntary oath to celebacy, not to mention the physical abuse that ensued in the prostitute/wife's family after she was born through adultry and the inability of her father to love her as his own daughter--subjects just brushed aside by the narrator as mere introductions. At least he was honest enough to mention them. I only post the link as a first hand counterpoint to the thrust of my own arguments so far.

Holy cow. Lots of homework there, but it is a fascinating topic so I'll get to it in the midst of the turkey soup I'm making today.

Man! The whole society is so messed up. When I said that I had doubts whether promiscuity is a vice, it was because all that I see in folks brought up in a normal home is that they seldom abuse drugs and are generally disposed towards success in life; however, in my experience, children brought up in normal household are no more disposed towards integrated honesty than those who may come from broken families.
And while I'm strictly against drug use, I don't think much of prosperity if it does not come with fully integrated honesty. And if families are a failure in producing such honesty, as they are all over the world and in all times, then I frankly see no benefit in the pathetic family values.

Just read the story of that prostitute wife and her daughter. Married men, religious leaders, and the elites are as much likely to abuse her services as the vulgar, but with a pretense of propriety. So the only difference is that in some circles these things happen openly and end up on Jerry Springer, while in others they happen behind the veal (further reading about Arab men and their mysoginism); but either way, it is a system of lies and corruption.

Traditional families or nuclear families fail to cultivate Honesty. What they produce is gang mentality--sort of like in God Father--where honesty is honored only towards friends and family, but go head and fck the stranger, the outsider, and more power to you if you can beat the system.
In short the morality that is advanced is not rational but based upon group selection and survival in the group--perfect example of evolutionary basis of human society and ethics. huh!

Quote :

The real question is: What is wrong with prostitution, pornography, or sex massage therapy?
And how do you distinguish that from the everyday norm of "hooking up" where folks in bars and clubs are looking for one night stands?

I see two sides to those questions. What's wrong with any social "sin" from the perspective of A) the individual and B) the community? The objective moral answer lies somewhere in the gray area between the two subjects.

My policy in cases such as alcohol and drugs and prostitution---so-called "victimless" crimes---is for society to be tolerant of such innate human "faults" until there is an actual victim for society to defend. In other words, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty---after the fact. No harm, no foul. For example, we can't prevent murder, but we can prosecute it, and hope for a deterrent effect.

Society too often plays an overbearing parental role for its adult "children" by trying to prevent potential harm to the sinner and to innocent bystanders. But such pre-emptive laws tend to repress individual freedoms without actually doing much good for the potential victims. Apparently, our society didn't learn much from the chaos of the Prohibition Era: if you criminalize a common human desire, then criminals will find a way to profit from it, and society will then have to deal with the professional criminals.

Technically, a society can criminalize any behavior it deems anti-social, such as urinating in a public street. But only tyrannical societies practice a zero-tolerance policy toward deviations from propriety---except, of course, in extreme circumstances. So the next question is C) is this an extreme situation? And the debate goes on.

Averroes, it's one thing to take walk on the wild side and see how the other half lives, but I think you have been reading too much of the wrong stuff - and reading too much into it. This thread kind of reminds me of the Kinsey Report. Or Freud. He probably meant to do serious research, but because the only willing participants he could find were prostitutes, his conclusions about human sexuality were so blatantly bias as to be useless. (unfortunately, people believed him).

There is no denying the power of the human sex drive. It is necessary for the survival of the species, but hormones overrule brains for much of our lives! Other mammals are fortunate - they only have to deal with this at specific and limited times, while we are horny all year round!

Those cultures that attempt to suppress this very natural drive end up causing the individuals a great deal of frustration and stress. Since stress is the underlying cause of so many illnesses, I could safely say it can make people sick. It also causes celibate priests to act out in very unseemly ways.

But, no society can allow completely indiscriminate sexual encounters to occur without some restraint. IMO, the best sexual outlet involves two people who care about each other. Unfortunately, not everyone finds a partner who cares about them and who they care about.

I (mis)spent my youth enjoying many casual encounters with members of the opposite sex. (Fortunately, this was before AIDS - remember kiddies, don't try this at home!). In my late twenties, I grew tired of the meaningless sex and sought a mate with which I could "settle down".

But I continued to look in all the same places I had been looking for casual sex. Somehow, I managed to meet someone with whom I could establish a relationship. It lasted 17 years. After living with a nagging wife, I sometimes grew nostalgic for the days when I could have sex and then just ...leave! I didn't cheat on my wife, though. If I couldn't be faithful, what would be the point of being married?

But I never employed a prostitute. However, I spent a lot of money on dates, so....I can see why Averroes equates casual sex with prostitution! Part of the attraction may be that there is no awkward conversation the next morning, no commitment, and no alimony.

Here's something to consider: The idea of love and marriage is a fairly new concept. Until recently, marriages were the merging of families for the purposes of increasing wealth and power. Now that could certainly resemble prostitution! I try to remember that whenever I hear politicians defend the institution of marriage as if it were something sanctimonious.

Am I still talking? Are you still listening?

Prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada. It is presumably healthier than picking up a street-walker, but I think a person would have to be pretty desperate to hire a sex partner. Now, if he is that desperate and he hires a prostitute instead of raping the next girl who walks by, maybe it's not all that bad.

I'll shut up now.

Gnomon wrote:

My policy in cases such as alcohol and drugs and prostitution---so-called "victimless" crimes---is for society to be tolerant of such innate human "faults" until there is an actual victim for society to defend. In other words, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty---after the fact. No harm, no foul. For example, we can't prevent murder, but we can prosecute it, and hope for a deterrent effect.

We're already operating under the presumption that all sex and drugs are legalized. Now the question that we're contemplating is what ought to be the standard by which we ought to behave, voluntarily? That is why I keep bringing up our real/hypothetical daughters and sons; the question is whether or not we ought to encourage them to become prostitutes, pornographists, or promiscuous, if they so choose to?

Thanks a lot for your reply, Paul. You and I have had this conversation before, but due to the presence of others the conversation did not resolve in fruition.

Quote :

There is no denying the power of the human sex drive. It is necessary for the survival of the species, but hormones overrule brains for much of our lives! Other mammals are fortunate - they only have to deal with this at specific and limited times, while we are horny all year round!

I recently read this book called the Future of Marriage, and in it the author presents lots of anthropological and ethological data explaining the origins and universality of marriage within human beings. According to him there are three things unique to human sexuality: year long sex drive, the obscurity of ovulation in human females, and female orgasm.
(He also mentioned the frontal nature of human sexual intercourse--missionary position--that he claims encourages eye to eye contact; but you adequately refuted that assertion when you mentinoed that the reason for that is more likely to be our bipedality and that even now it is more natural for men to penetrate women from behind like other mammals).

According to the author, nature instilled the year long sex drive in humans, including the ability of women to have orgasm, inorder to foster ties between a couple. Simultaneously, the ovulation of women became obscured and so men had to have more sex with them inorder to ensure that their sperm succesfully passes on, which in turn lead towards year long sexual drive that further bonded the couple.
And the reason for this natural selection in favor of pair bonding was obvious: Unlike all other animal species human babies has two obvious defects:
1. They are born helpless and remain that way for several years, untill the age between 10-12. It takes them a whole year to even stand on their feet let alone evade a predator, which is a serious survival handicap....
2. Unlike other animals, including higher mammals or primates, human beings are entirely a product of enculturation (not counting the obvious genetic heritage) to the extent that we have no instincts.

Thus, there is something unique about human families unlike the rest of the animal kingdom:
Human beings has naturally evolved the institution of fatherhood vis a vie the ties of the human male (as husband) to the mother (as wife); whereas the rest of the animal kingdom is mostly matriarchal where the males play no role in child rearing, which is done by the matriarchy of sisters, aunts, and daughters.

In human beings, in all cultures without exception, the father plays a significant role in the life of the child--even in matrilineal societies where the maternal uncles is responsible for the well being of the child, fathers play a significant role in their children's lives, and all children know who their biological fathers are. Thus Fatherhood (as opposed to merely being a father) has been a universal aspect of human cultures all over the world and in all times going back to hominoids.

Quote :

Those cultures that attempt to suppress this very natural drive end up causing the individuals a great deal of frustration and stress. Since stress is the underlying cause of so many illnesses, I could safely say it can make people sick. It also causes celibate priests to act out in very unseemly ways.

We musn't deny anyone their ability to enjoy sex; however, a common observation by a lot of social psychologist is the maturing affect on young adult males when they pair bond for life (marriage), its beneficial affects on health and longevity of life, and its obvious financial benefits for both the couple and the childrend.
It would appear that the reason humans have developed year long sex drives is to create a bond of intimacy between a couple. And this is key: We all recognize that sex creates a special bond between a man and a woman, and so the reason promiscuity (having frequent multiple sex partners) is wrong is because it detaches sexuality from intimacy, whereby sex becomes much like having food; and it is my conjecture that when this happens to individuals they become mal adapted to have a family--they even stop wanting to have children since in their subconscious the primary motivation for sex is no longer reproduction. And the proof of my assertion is the negative birth rate in the most advanced countries of the world--its not just that people are having less children because of increased education and wealth, but that they are not having children at all such that inspite of immigration the population of Europe is declining, that of Japan in barely stable, and that if United States is kept stable only due to increased child birth among immigrants: The reason immigrants are having more children is partly due to their traditional agrarian views on family, partly due to strict taboo against abortion as among Catholic Hispanics in United States, and partly due to conservative views on promiscuity as among the Muslims of European Union.

There is fundamental difference between all human drives and urges on one hand vs. sex: We don't need sex to survive as individuals.
We cannot survive more than a few minutes without breathing, a few days without drinking or sleeping, a few weeks without eating, and less than a month without defecating. But we can live a long life without having sex. Furthermore, unlike all other drives that arise in us as pain, sex is primarily a pleasurable activity and it would appear that nature made it so inorder to ensure the survival of the species--why else would a brute male of any species mount a female unless the pleasure urge overrides the agression and privacy of both sexes?

Quote :

no society can allow completely indiscriminate sexual encounters to occur without some restraint. IMO, the best sexual outlet involves two people who care about each other. Unfortunately, not everyone finds a partner who cares about them and who they care about.

That is true, and this is why I think that perhaps prostitution does play some healthy function within a society. An example that comes to mind is the movie Born on the 4th of July, where the disabled veteran (Tom Cruise) finally gets to fulfill his carnal desires through the aide of a sympathetic prostitute. Of course, this is precisely where polygamy comes in--not as a means for 40 year old men to marry teenage girls--but like Muhammad originally said it in the Quran: "If you cannot be equitable with orphans than marry the women [their mothers] two and three and four; but if you cannot be equitable than only one or that which your right hand possess [legally acquired concubines]."
Now, stepping aside the issue of concubinage and slavery, the same goes the other way round, in polygyny, where a bountiful women (either financially well off or one whose willing to service mankind) marries several men that've become disabled and not able to marry due to various reasons. In such an arrangement, which ought to be permanent, any child born would have the blessing of having multiple fathers.

The important point is to focus on family and children rather than sex.

Quote :

I (mis)spent my youth enjoying many casual encounters with members of the opposite sex. (Fortunately, this was before AIDS - remember kiddies, don't try this at home!). In my late twenties, I grew tired of the meaningless sex and sought a mate with which I could "settle down".

But I continued to look in all the same places I had been looking for casual sex. Somehow, I managed to meet someone with whom I could establish a relationship. It lasted 17 years. After living with a nagging wife, I sometimes grew nostalgic for the days when I could have sex and then just ...leave! I didn't cheat on my wife, though. If I couldn't be faithful, what would be the point of being married?

Not to impose, but I would venture a conjecture that perhaps what you suffered through is what I've described above: Promiscuity subconsciously detaches intimacy from sexuality thereby greatly diminishing the natural human tendency to pair bond for life.
Perhaps, that is why parents have intuitively discouraged their children from having sexual intercourse until the right moment or until after marriage. It is understandable that a couple that engages in sex for first time, after marriage, would foster a deep impression of each other and if we include the prolonged engagement period in which they discover each other, combined with a taboo against divorce, that the odds are all stacked in favor of such a marriage. Of course, it goes without saying that it is not just the longevity of a marriage that is desireable in of itself; for if the welfare of the children is why we get married then it only goes to show that in case of severe conflict it is better for the child's well being that parents seperate.


I thank you for your candor. This whole discussion is important to me and while I may propose a certain point of view, that I've inherited, I'm not convinced that it is what ought to be universally accepted by all.
For instance, it is my view that all people should frown upon the use of drugs (including alcohol) at all times; the only exception being the strict medicinal use of drugs. However, unlike sobriety, I'm not sure that modesty ought to be a universal ethical value. I'm not sure that modesty is a necessary part of virtue.

Averroes wrote:

2. Unlike other animals, including higher mammals or primates, human beings are entirely a product of enculturation (not counting the obvious genetic heritage) to the extent that we have no instincts.

Thus, there is something unique about human families unlike the rest of the animal kingdom:
Human beings has naturally evolved the institution of fatherhood vis a vie the ties of the human male (as husband) to the mother (as wife); whereas the rest of the animal kingdom is mostly matriarchal where the males play no role in child rearing, which is done by the matriarchy of sisters, aunts, and daughters.

I agreed up to this point. I think there are many social species where the male plays an important role. You may have heard of the example of the juvenile elephants who were segregated from the herd and pretty much became holy terrors. When adult males were reintroduced, the juvies were brought in line. (The analogy with our inner city crime rates is inescapable) Also, many primate species have male dominated societies where the males serve as similar role models and juvenile police. It is why, I believe, a hetero- couple is usually the most desirable for raising children.

Quote :

It would appear that the reason humans have developed year long sex drives is to create a bond of intimacy between a couple. And this is key: We all recognize that sex creates a special bond between a man and a woman, and so the reason promiscuity (having frequent multiple sex partners) is wrong is because it detaches sexuality from intimacy, whereby sex becomes much like having food; and it is my conjecture that when this happens to individuals they become mal adapted to have a family

I think that's a non-sequitur. Why the assumption that you can't have multiple intimacies? As long as fidelity is not an issue, I think that's entirely possible, thus plural marriages. But intimacy does not even require a lasting relationship, only one that isn't shallow--and even that isn't necessarily wrong, again, if fidelity isn't an issue.

Averroes wrote:

We're already operating under the presumption that all sex and drugs are legalized. Now the question that we're contemplating is what ought to be the standard by which we ought to behave, voluntarily? That is why I keep bringing up our real/hypothetical daughters and sons; the question is whether or not we ought to encourage them to become prostitutes, pornographists, or promiscuous, if they so choose to?

No. But we should encourage them to look before they leap. The pernicious effects of vices usually follow relatively innocent first steps. Teenagers especially are poorly-equipped to make rational judgments about future consequences. That's where parents come in: first to inform of negatives they'd rather not think about; then if that fails, to exercise authoritative restraint. Once they are on their own recognizance, self-knowledge and self-restraint must take over the protective role of parents.

PS---Prostitution and promiscuity are simply dating taken to an extreme. Children should learn early-on the lesson of "moderation in all things". Moderation may seem boring, but it will seldom get you in trouble. (except maybe at an orgy)

Wiki: Moderation is also a principle of life. In ancient Greece, the temple of Apollo at Delphi bore the inscription Meden Agan - 'Nothing in excess'.

Paineful wrote:

I think that's a non-sequitur. Why the assumption that you can't have multiple intimacies? As long as fidelity is not an issue, I think that's entirely possible, thus plural marriages. But intimacy does not even require a lasting relationship, only one that isn't shallow--and even that isn't necessarily wrong, again, if fidelity isn't an issue.

I can agree with the above. The key is genuinely intimate relationships entered and left on complete fidelity. As a matter of fact, this is why I'm not convinced that either marriage or nuclear family is really that important. So long as young and poor women are not having children and are not on drugs, there seems to be no reason why me must have traditional families with both a father and a mother. No data shows that traditional nuclear families do a better job of inculcating honesty and fidelity in their children; and reciprocally, one can advocate that so long as a single parent (say, a father) has a conscience that is integrated with honesty (which means that not only does he not coerce or decieve others, but that he is diligent in his responsibilities towards his child/ren), coupled with sobriety and steady income above poverty, that by all means his children would stay off drugs and violence and would be just as likely to succeed in life and perhaps become more honest than their counterparts broughtup in traditional families. I think I could be such a father who can raise children in such a way even without the assistance of a woman. Not that I'll deprive them of their mother's touch, but it shouldn't really matter who the parents are (single parent, gay parents, multiple parents) so long as they are involved in a child's life, and they themselves are neither violent, nor on drugs, nor in such dire straits that they have difficulty surviving on their own without welfare or constant travel.

However, you haven't answered my question on the relevance of prostitution and pornography. Are these professions wrong in your opinion? And if not, then would you try to dissuade your own daughter or son from joining that trade?