SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Why do humans prefer to mate in private?
Anecdotal evidence suggests that human beings generally prefer to mate in private—but why? And why is it so rare? Other than humans, only one other species has demonstrated a preference for privacy during mating: Arabian babblers. To learn more, [anthropologist Yitzchak] Ben Mocha retrieved data from 4,572 accounts of cultural studies—ethnographies—and studied them looking for what he describes as normal sexual practices. Those involved were not trying to shock or avoid punishment for engaging in taboo practices such as incest—and were also not in the pornography business. He found that virtually every known culture practices private mating—even in places where privacy is difficult to find. He also looked for examples of other animals mating in private, and found none, except for the babblers. He also found that there were no explanations for it, and in fact, there were very few other people wondering why humans have such a proclivity. And, not surprisingly, he was unable to find any evolutionary theories on the topic.
Journal Reference:
Yitzchak Ben Mocha. Why do human and non-human species conceal mating? The cooperation maintenance hypothesis, Proceedings of the Royal Society B (DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2020.1330)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @05:46PM (10 children)
Aren't scientists supposed to state their assumptions? There's a big one here: people are just another animal. Discuss.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:39PM
Some animals are very private about their mating. Animals kept prisoner in zoos: often not, but sometimes just as much.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Immerman on Thursday August 06 2020, @08:05PM (8 children)
> There's a big one here: people are just another animal. Discuss.
Given the steadily growing body of evidence that humans don't possess any traits that aren't also possessed by at least some other other animals, plus the total lack of any evidence that there's anything else special about us, the discussion is pretty much long dead outside of seminary school.
We're animals. The combination of complex language, symbolic reasoning, and thumbs allowed us to build a far more sophisticated culture than most, but we're still animals.
(Score: 3, Funny) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 06 2020, @09:40PM (6 children)
"Some animals are more equal than others" - John Belushi
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Touché) by tizan on Thursday August 06 2020, @09:58PM (5 children)
I believe it is from Orwell's Animal Farm well before that
(Score: 3, Touché) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 06 2020, @10:08PM
Farm... House... It's all the same
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Interesting) by shortscreen on Thursday August 06 2020, @10:17PM (3 children)
What is your opinion on SN potentially adding a "whoosh" moderation category?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @01:47AM (2 children)
TMB has been asked before. I believe his reply was that a moderation that applied to almost all posts was useless.
(Score: 5, Funny) by hendrikboom on Friday August 07 2020, @02:53AM (1 child)
I don't even know what such a moderation would mean.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @05:06AM
Whoosh
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Friday August 07 2020, @02:35AM
I was discussing this very thing with the uniformed tiger driving the school bus. He said his wife, a snapping turtle, was in full agreement.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday August 06 2020, @05:47PM (16 children)
The days when humans were fucking publicly probably came (heh) to an end when humans started to develop tools, which meant that the nerdy never-got-anys could fly into fits of envious rage and plunge a knife into chad's back while he was nuppin' dat Homo Erectus bitch gorilla-style.
Think about it: animals are physically vulnerable during mating. I've heard this same questioning about why dogs mate ass-to-ass, and while all the egghead scientists couldn't figure that one out either, it makes sense that ass-to-ass mating provides a combined 360-degree field of view to detect predators which may approach at all angles. Or if you're a couple of heroin-addicted sluts in Requiem for a Dream, doing ass to ass makes you heroin money. [bustle.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:15PM (2 children)
The sociology studies I've seen around the subject suggested that Medieval society had little or no problem with sex in front of others, people typically didn't have private places to "sleep" in, so they're gonna do what they're gonna do somewhere.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:47PM (1 child)
I've read the same about peasantry in east Asia and native Americans, but then you have Diogenes masturbating in public being a big deal...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:12PM
Diogenes and his contemporaries probably had "private places" where they were expected to do that.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:31PM
this is my take on it too. i like to be completely naked and take my sweet time. i don't want to be vulnerable to attack during this time.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Immerman on Thursday August 06 2020, @08:10PM (8 children)
>why dogs mate ass-to-ass
Umm... they don't? They mate doggy style. Then they stand around ass-to-ass because he can't pull out without causing them both serious pain. Probably to increase the chances of fertilization occurring before the next dog mounts her. A much more calorie-friendly solution than dolphins, who ejaculate bucket-loads at high pressure to wash away the semen from her previous partners.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Opportunist on Thursday August 06 2020, @09:11PM (5 children)
Found the Furry.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Thursday August 06 2020, @10:37PM (4 children)
Heh. The danger in knowing a little bit about everything...
Can I assume then that you don't include biology along with particle physics, relativity, etc, etc, etc. in your list of generally interesting things to learn about? I'll refrain from informing you of the mating habits of bedbugs, and why it makes them so incredibly difficult to eliminate. You don't need those nightmares.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday August 07 2020, @05:46AM (3 children)
Dude. Joking.
I'm enough of a reservoir of useless facts that people refuse to play Trivial Pursuit with me. And I appreciate not having to learn about the mating habits of bedbugs, though I do have the urge now to use google to find out...
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday August 07 2020, @12:35PM (2 children)
I figured. I guess my own humor didn't come through.
Bedbugs are actually kind of interesting, mostly the stuff of nightmares if you're a female bedbug, or are trying to eliminate (or actively avoid) an infestation.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday August 07 2020, @04:06PM (1 child)
Is there a chance you might stop? I'm kinda entomophobic.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Immerman on Friday August 07 2020, @06:28PM
No more details, I promise. At least here - if you see me post in a pest-related conversation you may want to scroll on past.
But because I'm evil I'll just mention that house centipedes are the number one best insect control you could hope for - shy, completely harmless to humans, and voracious hunters of pretty much every kind of bug you wouldn't want in your house.
Bye };-)
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday August 07 2020, @12:50AM (1 child)
The fact that wolves don't do the back to back thing suggests it's probably some artifact of human medling.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday August 07 2020, @01:29AM
Huh. Human meddling, or at least the influence of a human-meddled environment certainly does seem like the obvious culprit.
I wonder if we distorted their genitals, or just their priorities? I could certainly see how standing around like that could be a non-survival trait in the wild. And in the wild the rest of the pack is going to mostly be elderly or her immature pups, while a dog pack is likely to be all the dogs in the area.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Thursday August 06 2020, @09:42PM (2 children)
dat Homo Erectus bitch gorilla-style.
So you still have not heard how hot the Neanderthal women were? (even without hot grits)
And mum's did not even have basements 100,000 years ago.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 06 2020, @10:40PM
Nah man, that big-headed neoteny is just wrong. We've got customs against child abuse in these caves.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday August 07 2020, @12:48AM
No, but they had caves and those caves had lower caverns where she'd let you draw on the walls.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 06 2020, @05:48PM (34 children)
Why do they let the government/church regulate it?
Control sex, and you control the human. They will do anything you say. Kill, die, anything
Read "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" by Wilhelm Reich. It shows how sex prohibitions are the basis of all control
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:06PM (1 child)
The primary reason people prefer to mate in prison is social pressure to do so, not a personal desire to.
Just going off myself the primary reasons in descending order are:
Public sex would get you labelled a sex offender/arrested, at least in the US.
Ridicule or critique of your appearance, sexual organs, or sexual abilities.
Others desiring to join in who you might not want to. (With STD/VD risk a strong parallel.)
I'm sure there are other reasons for some people, but most of the reasons for sex as a privacy affair are social, and as a result of the social pressures, personally psychological. People who are into or enjoy public sex for the most part take it to sex clubs, and those for whom sex clubs aren't enough may take the risk of exhibitionism out in public, something I don't recommend due to the legal consequences, but that appeals to a lot of people, particularly women (I have met far fewer guys who get sexual gratification from public sex, although many are more than willing to do it given the appeals of a partner.)
So as others have stated the whole hypothesis makes presumptions that just aren't grounded in reality.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:35PM
I don't think your first sentence is quite what you meant to say.
It's still true, though, in its own way.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:43PM (26 children)
I would strongly separate the government and church or religions in this context.
Most religious groups of the world would say basically: (1) get married, (2) do it in private. They have no actual power to enforce anything (in most cases).
Government on the other hand is quite different. Do it only in government approved ways. When. Where. How. How often. And maybe even with specific individual(s). With the power to enforce such conditions. Government knows best!
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Informative) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:53PM (25 children)
Church/Government/Corp is still one, just striking from different angles. It maintains that sex is evil, it is the most fundamental aspect of social authority
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:33PM (16 children)
Churches
Churches (and by use of this word, I'm thinking various groups labeled "Christian") would say sex is only evil outside marriage. I don't know of any churches, or even religions that label sex within marriage as evil. (Although I would be open to any correction on that point.)
Aside: to any churches that would try to influence legislation about specific practices which they view as evil, I would offer advice. If you truly believe (as I do) then maybe it would be better to pray for those people and show them love rather than just condemn them. If you really think they are doing something wrong. You can't make someone believe. I think we are fortunate that churches do not have the enforcement power of government.
Governments
I don't know of any governments that label sex as evil in a general sense. As far as I know, governments mostly regulate things like public decency and age of consent. Although some governments or US states have at times regulated specific private practices in some misguided attempt at something. But I know of no government condemning all sex of every kind as evil.
Corporations
Corporations are even more interesting. I know of no corporations that have policies about sex, other than keeping it out of the workplace. But again, I would be interested to learn of any counter examples.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:38PM (5 children)
Many Christian groups believe that sex inside marriage without the purpose of procreation is immoral - hence the opposition to contraceptives and abortion.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 06 2020, @09:11PM (3 children)
I think you might mean Catholics.
I bet those same groups would sanction the marriage of two older people who are too old to have children. I wonder what they think is the reason those people might be getting married for.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @10:30PM
I was thinking of my grandparents, who are Lutheran. Catholics are still Christian though.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by choose another one on Thursday August 06 2020, @11:31PM (1 child)
> I bet those same groups would sanction the marriage of two older people who are too old to have children.
Catholics have already run through that argument and have an answer for it (same as the "what if he/she is infertile" question) - basically if God wants it to happen she will make it so, call it a miracle or whatever, which makes it all ok to get married to have sex.
Oddly the same answer doesn't apply to same sex marriage, God is clearly fussy about exactly which miracles of procreation are acceptable, and in which animals (since sequential hermaphroditism and gynandromorphism etc. exist in God's animal creations...). Or to oral sex, or anal, and so on and so forth all the way to "every sperm is sacred".
> I wonder what they think is the reason those people might be getting married for.
Not only do they think it, in fact they _must_ be getting married for that - impotence (not infertility) is a bar to marriage for Catholics, marriage _must_ be consummated to be valid, which specifically means semen in vagina, no other way. If the parties cannot do that then the one true church will not marry them, and yes medical evidence may be required if there is doubt.
Yes, I was once a Catholic and my late grandmother was widowed then remarried when in her 70s - this stuff was the subject of much family discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 08 2020, @06:34AM
So your religion used to be Catholic, but at some point you decided to choose another one?
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Friday August 07 2020, @02:47AM
It's not just procreation. Some Roman Catholic theologians have decided that pleasure while having sex is wrong.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:56PM
The differences amongst the three parts are purely superficial. Symbiosis has always defined the relationship. It is single organism. Sorta like a jellyfish
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @08:17PM (1 child)
There are still countries where, to this day, sex between same sex consenting adults is considered a crime punishable by death. The same goes for sex between multiple partners, sex outside of wedlock, etc.
What's that you were saying about governments ?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 06 2020, @09:13PM
You are right, there are some, and I was aware of that.
I was thinking of heterosexual sex. And inside of marriage. I don't know of any governments against that sort of thing.
But yes, other things like sex outside of marriage, or same-sex, etc are prohibited by some governments. But I think it is a minority of governments. Although I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong on that.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @02:43AM (1 child)
As a kid, deeply steeped in Southern Baptist religion, I thought sex was wrong. Even thinking about a woman was wrong. Lust. Sin. No dancing. Leads to sin.
But the itching came anyway, and to avoid shame in the church and family, I did it in private... With other guys.
I liked it, and more important, everyone was happy.
I thought it was kids the church did not want, because we had nothing to put in the plate. And they made such a big deal out of that... They would pass it in public, in front of everybody, to shame those who failed to deposit, while any signs of affection were frowned on.
Even to this day, I see steeped hands under a forward tilted head to be a symbol of abstinence from sex and a call to put money in a passed plate, lest ye bring shame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @05:18AM
In private it's the opposite - the money disappears and the cocks come out.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Friday August 07 2020, @03:19AM (1 child)
I've heard the Catharists considered all sex to be sin, even in marriage and for the purpose of procreation. The Catharists were proclaimed heretics by the Catholic Church.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 07 2020, @02:13PM
That is interesting. Thanks.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 07 2020, @03:02PM (2 children)
The Shakers proscribed all sex. For some reason, they died out.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 07 2020, @03:34PM (1 child)
Interesting. Thanks.
It would have been more interesting if they had NOT died out, yet continued to preach that same message for many generations.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @06:34PM
They went on for a while.
They grew their numbers with evangelism and adoption.
You know, until they didn't.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DECbot on Thursday August 06 2020, @09:11PM (2 children)
I'm going to contradict you here on some technicalities of the churches' teachings. Unless your church follows Quaker/Shaker teachings, sex isn't necessarily evil. In fact, many main stream denominations encourage reproduction to the fullest extent. What is taught as evil is lust and sex out of wedlock (because that leads to having children out of wedlock as well as other such issues). Lust is considered evil because it is a selfish action that often overrides self control and sex outside of wedlock usurps nuclear families and the societal support structures they create. Some denominations will also frown on birth control of all forms (including the pull-out method) as they encourage high birth rates as "God's will." Given that the number of Christians in the US is declining, I'd argue that those denominations are not so successful at the birth control message--even among their followers. I personally like the secular take on these conservative values; our liberties are preserved by every individual taking self-responsibilities of their actions. It is documented that children have a higher success rate when more adults are personally committed to their development. Outcomes of traditional nuclear families are on general thought to be more positive than single parent families. However, I want to see more research and evidence about non-traditional families with multiple adult partners in long term relationships (does not necessarily have to be sexual, but all adults in the same home contributing to the family) involved in child rearing. If two parents are advantageous over a single parent, than are three parents families advantageous over two parents?
Circling back around to the lust argument; peaceful, open, and liberal (as in preserving liberty) societies--like the one I want to live in--I believe are found on personal responsibility, respect, trust, and maturity. I think a mature, responsible person that respects other people acting in self interest is not dangerous. However, an immature individual acting in self interest may not respect others, could damage future prospects, or violate other's liberties is an act of evil. If your society revolves around the concept of a nuclear family as the base unit for support and raising children, then acting on lustful desires (sexual or material) jeopardizes the base support of your society. If a father lusts after a car so much he steals it, he not only risks his personal freedom but also the support of his family. If an older married man has an affair with his single, young co-worker he harms his family's trust in him he also harms the success of the child birthed out of wedlock. Please don't mind the examples given--they are overly simple and do not demonstrate that all parties of society must act responsibly. They serve to demonstrate that "sin" or "evil" actions tend to be self-centered actions that harm people besides the "sinner." The first example, the mother now has the burden to do all the earning as well as all the parenting and the same for the second example too. Likewise, an alcoholic or drug addicted mother causes similar harm as she prioritizes her self-centered self-interest over the parenting of her children. Over the years, religion has codified many of these actions as sin and various forms of governments create laws to discourage and punish the worst offenders. These are general statements, no person is perfect and thus no government or religion practiced by people is perfect. The interesting point, in good faith, the US government has supported the degradation of the nuclear family by providing social programs that reward single parents. That sounds harsh, because it is. Because of our traditions and culture, as single parent families are at a disadvantage. Instead of programs that invoked personal responsibility for the parents, they rewarded self-centered, self-gratification immature actions performed by the parents by producing a compassionate safety net for the irresponsible parent. This is why I tend to argue against divorce, having children out of wedlock, and against marrying too young--these actions are typically the result of immaturity and disavowing personal responsibility. At this point, would we be better off without these programs? No, and I believe very strongly in that answer. The acceptance of immature decision making in our culture is alarming and we need these programs until our culture develops new support mechanisms and taboos. Perhaps it is the nuclear family norm that will be dissolved first.
The observation here is a society, a tribe, a community, a corporation, through their experiences and traditions passed down through the generations ascribe a set of rules to abide by, codifying acceptable behaviors and how the young must be reared. This does occur through many faucets of human interaction; religion and government are the most common but it even occurs autonomously in small groups without formal structures, like what is considered taboo at a relative's birthday party. The society that you and I live in does have traditions influenced by the christian church which influence our society's perceptions of sex. However, other cultures with strong nuclear families with little to no influence of the christian church, like Japan, also have similar taboos regarding birthing children out of wedlock. This leads me to believe there are cultural pressures outside of the christian decrees that influence this socialite pressure. Western traditions can ascribe them as christian traditions but what of the far east cultures that might view this as taboo as well? Naming the church, government, or corporation is just abstracting away the natural process of humans determining their culture and traditions. Is it a coincidence that cultures that optimize and conserve resources into families allowed them to hasten the spread of their values? I think it is not. Perhaps the nuclear family conserves resources more than a society of single parents but provides more flexibility to react to environmental pressures than a collective child rearing culture. That's my assumption but I'm not sure and have no data to provide evidence. Does that mean I believe the nuclear family culture is better? No, absolutely not--though that is the culture I was raised in and the one I want to raise my children in. Should it be spreading? That is an interesting question. Does arguing in favor of multiculturalism necessitate the argument against the spread of any individual culture and most explicitly against the spread of Western culture?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday August 07 2020, @01:09PM
There's a big difference between the Quakers and the Shakers:
- The Quakers were and still are totally fine with sex. Early Quakers were generally in the "within a marriage only, mostly for having kids" camp, and more conservative Quakers still fall into that, but more liberal Quakers were and are ardent feminists and backers of LGBT+ rights and such and nowadays have the position of "have fun, just don't hurt anybody" camp.
- The Shakers are the ones who demanded that *everybody* be celibate in their communities. Men and women lived in 1 community, but very segregated from each other in a lot of ways to prevent sexual contact. The idea was that sexual activities would draw energy away from devotion to God. They attempted to propagate their ideas to future generations by taking in orphans and runaway kids, with some success, but they couldn't do that to the degree that many religions propagate by having their kids born and raised with a particular viewpoint and keeping that viewpoint into adulthood.
This difference is probably why there are something like 1-2 million Quakers in the world today, and almost no Shakers.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday August 07 2020, @06:34PM
Allow me to present an alternative view: lust is labeled evil because nothing breeds obsession like forbidden fruit, and that helps the flock breed rapidly so the tithes keep rolling in, and you have plenty of expendable foot soldiers to conquer your less-prolific neighbors.
Christianity has after all always been a pretty tyrannical and militant religion (I'm talking the church here - NOT Christ's teachings, which the church does their best to ignore)
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday August 06 2020, @10:32PM (4 children)
You oversimplify. Only some governments and religions claim that sex is evil. Others claim that it's good...though these are less common in modern existence. In old Mesopotamia the astrologers used to calculate a particular day(s) each year where everyone was supposed to fuck in public, including the King who was required for fuck the high Priestess of Ishtar/Innanna/whoever was goddess of sex. They did it on top of a tall platform so everyone could see and be inspired.
I haven't run across the details, but in Egypt the high priestess, so it is reported, was supposed to suck off a goat once a year. I can't vouch for that, but I wouldn't disbelieve it either.
What's uniform here is the government/religion controlling aspects of sex. Sometimes to suppress it, sometimes to encourage it. And it probably *is* connected to psyops controlling methods...even if those were empirically derived rather than based on some theory.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 06 2020, @11:18PM (3 children)
You oversimplify. Only some governments and religions claim that sex is evil.... What's uniform here is the government/religion controlling aspects of sex.
Yeah, sorry, I'm a victim of American Puritanism. They really lay it on thick
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday August 07 2020, @01:17AM (2 children)
I have been led to believe that the Catholics really lay that stuff on thick as well, but in my experience the most enthusiastically affectionate young ladies have been the Catholic ones.
Either because they wanted to know what the big deal was, or because they had tried it and liked it.
I suspect that all that guilt might not work the way the priests want it to.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday August 07 2020, @01:20AM
I suspect that all that guilt might not work the way the priests want it to.
One quick look at the books will remove all doubt
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @05:08AM
I think it is a bathtub curve based on the studies I've seen. You get a good number who are scarred into being scared about sex, and those issues last well into their marriages and often passed to their children. You also get a fair number that think that all activity is morally equal and they've sinned a bit, so they might as well go all in and get forgiveness later.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:57PM (2 children)
I have been extremely pleased with the guidance I recieved from the Church as it pertains to sexual habits. I have a wonderful wife and kids, whereas a lot of my friends, now in their thirties, who chose to have a more unrestrained sexual life are mostly miserable and alone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @05:21AM
Let's keep it real, you couldn't get any when you were young and now you got lucky once you're hanging onto it for dear life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @04:16PM
I'm an atheist with a wonderful wife and kids, so I think your situation says more about your friends' stupidity than it does about the value of religious views of sex.
(Score: 2) by chewbacon on Friday August 07 2020, @12:12AM (1 child)
Yeah, this. Control sex, control the person. This is why our spouses/SOs insist on monogamy! Ever heard "sex isn't everything" from your SO? It isn't until you go hittin' it with someone else. Then it's EVERYTHING.
I love my wife, she just doesn't let me sleep with other women.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday August 07 2020, @01:24AM
I love my wife, she just doesn't let me sleep with other women.
Don't want another black eye, eh?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Funny) by ilPapa on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:05PM (3 children)
Me, I like to do it on the front lawn, and I don't let being by myself stop me, neither.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:40PM (1 child)
I might be welcome on your lawn, but I think I'll pass, given the circumstances.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @10:43PM
Drain the swamp!
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Thursday August 06 2020, @09:13PM
Is that why you yell at the kids to get off your lawn?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:07PM (7 children)
People's approach to sex is heavily hobbled by cultural and ideological biases that are transmitted from generation to generation. Most taboos aren't inherited but acquired.
Indirect evidence of the weight of cultural norms can be seen in poorly educated people: most of them have an easier time having sex in semi-public places (backalleys, toilets, beach, elevators...) than those who have had an educated and/or heavily religious upbringing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:21PM (5 children)
It could be cultural. But every known culture has the same bias toward private mating.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:31PM
Avoids embarrassing laughter.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:09PM (2 children)
Remember the first time someone fooled you with a link to goat.se?
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:40PM (1 child)
Goatse was just as meh as two girls one cup. Not very shocking or disgusting, just meh. Octopussy was pretty freaky though.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @08:32PM
Hey now, Roger Moore's performance wasn't that bad.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 06 2020, @08:53PM
Early visitors to Tahiti recorded sex as being a very public activity with people cheering on whoever was going at it. That, combined with a "free love" attitude probably had a lot to do with it becoming a very popular stop for sailing vessels.
And in allegedly-free countries like the US and Europe, there are substantial subcultures of swinging, orgies, BDSM munches, etc where people are regularly banging in front of friends, acquaintances, and total strangers. And public spaces fairly notorious for open sexual activity with local authorities looking the other way. Even in Iran, there is apparently a growing subculture of private orgies.
It's also not hard to find records of such things occurring historically. I even encountered a jaunty song about it when delving into folk music.
So yeah, I think culture and the fact that getting caught in the act can lead to people going to jail for a very long time has a lot to do with folks seeking privacy.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:17PM
Personally I want privacy because I don't trust the Russian judge to score me accurately.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:08PM (15 children)
In the animal kingdom almost every species has the alpha male getting mating rights
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:25PM (4 children)
That don't stop the stragglers from getting their nut in an errant female while the alpha is distracted somewhere else. The alpha might win all the public fights and earn the right to nup any and all bitches in his collective, but lesser males will always try to swoop in for a quick nut, and some will get away with it and won't always be caught doing so by the alpha. Perhaps that situation is a contributor to the advantage of "private mating?"
(Score: 0, Redundant) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:06PM (3 children)
With humans, it's the alpha priest that runs the harem
Sex is used to regulate everything. It is the bedrock of authority, just like with the animals
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:31PM (2 children)
Sheesh, where's the "broken record" mod when I need it.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @08:00PM
Fuck you!
It's hammer time! Bitch!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @05:28AM
They called it Redundant.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday August 06 2020, @09:02PM (6 children)
Not even remotely accurate:
- In insect species, you frequently have a queen and a bunch of drones that get to mate with her.
- A lot of species do pair-bonding. And while there is definitely cheating and adults who never mate in pair-bonded species, there are also a substantial number of descendants of the pair-bonded male.
- Quite a few species only get one round of mating by both males and females, which means that there ain't no such thing as an alpha.
- More solitary species like bears pretty much mate with whomever is handy and isn't related.
- Even in species where you think there's 1 alpha getting all the action, in fact a lot of other males mate on the sly, successfully.
Oh yeah, and concept of the "alpha" was developed for wolves, and it turns out the alpha male in a wolf pack is better described as "dad", because the pack consists of him, his mate, and their pups that are too young to venture out on their own.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday August 06 2020, @10:47PM (5 children)
With regards to "alpha male" (and the attendant violence) - not only was the concept developed around wolves, it was specifically developed around wolves *in captivity*. When the researcher who created the concept later studied wolves in the wild he realized he had gotten it so wrong that he did his best to eliminate his previous publication. And failed, as the concept had already firmly lodged in the imagination of certain kinds of men.
Lock any animal up with no opportunity to do anything meaningfully productive, and they tend to descend into violent competition for social status. See: prisons and schools.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @05:38AM
> See: prisons and schools.
And Reality TV.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @06:31AM (3 children)
This seems fairly far fetched and conveniently political narrative. However I don't know enough about the origin of the concept of the alpha male to say you are wrong - do you have an authoritative source for this?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday August 07 2020, @12:22PM
Authoritative? Not offhand. But here's a related article: https://www.mawer.com/the-art-of-boring/blog/the-myth-of-the-alpha-wolf [mawer.com]
With the names and dates provided I'm sure you could track something down if you really care.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @02:24PM
Do you have an alpha male you can ask? You know, a loud talker who knows everything. Real tiny penis.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday August 07 2020, @07:38PM
Also relevant here: Your concept of the "alpha male" doesn't apply at all to primates. For instance, chimpanzees definitely have leadership structures, but the leader is frequently the one who is really nice to the other chimps in the group and is good at making friends and sorting out personal disputes, whereas the one who is trying to be the tough guy and likes to fight a lot is often shunned because nobody likes him. And on top of that, the chimps who aren't the leader aren't prevented from mating, the leader just gets more attention than the others.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday August 06 2020, @10:41PM (2 children)
No. There are many species that operate that way, but an even larger number that don't. Among our close relatives the Gorillas operate that way, the Gibbons don't, the Chimpanzees are in between, and I don't know about the Orangutans. And I'm not sure the Bonobos are the same as the other Chimpanzee. (Non-Bonobo Chimpanzees tend to go in for orgies, but the dominant males get first dibs. I haven't heard anything similar claimed about the Bonobos...just that they're rather easy and are willing to use sex to smooth over hurt feelings.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Thursday August 06 2020, @10:53PM (1 child)
Yeah, in addition to being our closest wild relatives, bonobos are kinda the free-love champions of the ape world. Straight, gay, whatever, a little sex helps comfort friends and reduce social tensions. They also have a matriarchal society where one of the (typically elder) females is the one who leads the troop. Curiously, they're also the only primate where the males are responsible for the majority of child care, and where the males tend to outlive the females.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday August 06 2020, @11:12PM
Bonobos are no closer to us than the other Chimpanzees. They separated from each other more recently than their common ancestor separated from us.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Barenflimski on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:23PM (6 children)
That is an interesting question. I have never given it much thought. I know I like to mate in private because there are so many taboo's we have as society and so many ways to be shamed that its infinitely easier to share that with a very few number of people. My gut feeling is that if I knew I wouldn't be shamed or ostracized, I wouldn't care. The words, ungodly, eww, and gross seem to come to mind and those are the last things I want to hear before having some fun.
Around the religious type, anything remotely related to sex is picked apart. Just being naked is sinful. Most of the world is religious and religions tend to focus a whole lot of their energy on sex, sexual desires, and deviance. So what comes first, Humans being shy around each other, or us shaming each other for doing things differently than ourselves? Is it really about the sex folks are having? Or is it that you don't want to be the subject of the next wave of gossip? Is it as the author suggests, that men don't want other men to see their ladies in heat? Is it that an unfettered display of horniness between people can end up with multiple people excited? Watching porn turns on most women and men when they watch it, which suggests that watching others isn't actually gross. We have been taught though that those feelings are supposed to be dirty. Do couples disappear to keep out the random 3rd wheel? I've certainly seen that practiced especially in the college days.
There are some groups that don't care. Take swingers parties. For the most part, they don't care. I've known many couples over time that simply don't care as I've walked in on them multiple times. Do we know that before the world was introduced to the bible that people in general felt like sex had to be private? How about the Roman's? Weren't they always ready to rock an orgy?
This seems to be based much more on feelings and social constructs than any physical impediment. If you were to wipe everyone's minds and watch what happens, would folks do it without privacy? My guess is that without those feelings of shame and ridicule, or even the fear of being the subject of any gossipy conversation, that no one would care, assuming you both cleaned up the wet spot. Separating the crazy from the human though makes us not very human. I guess we'll just have to keep wondering, why do we participate in any of the rituals we have?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:37PM
I would point out amusingly the Genesis account where Adam and Eve were naked, and unashamed of it, before they ate the forbidden fruit.
I suspect your 2nd paragraph mostly contains the reasons people prefer privacy. Shy, shaming, not doing it right, or different, gossip, jealousy, 3rd wheel. As for couples getting excited by porn, don't they do that in private too?
Now if there were a large outdoor drive-in theater with porn, that would be different. But some unlucky nearby people would be able to see the projection, but wouldn't have the sound, making the visuals completely uninteresting.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:41PM (2 children)
"I've walked in on them multiple times". that's the point, isn't it? you walked in, they didn't walk in and start doing it while you were there.
the point is that humans seem to initiate sex predominantly in private. technically at an orgy it's still private, it's just that it's more than two people doing it. but everyone present is participating (yes, being a voyeur means that you're participating).
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:46PM
I would not know.
Aren't orgies still events that occur in private? Possibly by invitation.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:02PM
Well, I guess in this context, the point is that they didn't stop. They weren't ashamed of it. I got what I needed in that room and left. It didn't bother me one bit and I was happy for them.
So while yes, they initiated it in private, the minute it went public, it didn't change a thing for them, or me for that matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @07:33PM
> assuming you both cleaned up the wet spot.
Don't you keep some old towels around? We always spread one out on the bed in advance, keeps the sheets clean.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday August 06 2020, @10:48PM
Even in modern times not all religions are against sex, or consider it disgusting. The large majority of Jewish derived religions do. I'm much less sure about the Hindus...the reports seem quite mixed, and I've no personal experience. But there are other religions around that, at least theoretically, consider sex to be a gift of the gods, and should be enjoyed ... though with care taken to avoid problems. Sometimes that isn't just theoretical, also. But do note that even if sex is considered good that doesn't mean that multiple partners are approved of. That's a separate argument...and the religions that favor that are a lot fewer.
OTOH, it's hard to know how many of these constraints are due to the wider culture that they are embedded in.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @06:50PM (3 children)
Only bonobos are close, but they have sex all the time, so they don't care about privacy.
Human society regulates all biological functions in similar ways. We eat together, as a bonding ritual. We poop outside of the settlement, so we don't contaminate the food. We try not to fart audibly, but make fun of each other when it happens. And we have sex in private because... Well, it's a good question. But it's not really surprising that all societies do it the same way, because we all do these other biological things the same way too.
There's a good chance that it has something to do with our tendency to be monogam-ish. Privacy lets people cheat. Without it, we'd have to be fully committed to one ofthe usual animal mating strategies : harems, promiscuity, or monogamy.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 06 2020, @10:57PM (2 children)
> we'd have to be fully committed to one of the usual animal mating strategies : harems, promiscuity, or monogamy.
Aside from (supposedly) humans, there is no species on Earth that practices sexual monogamy. Even those like wolves and swans that form life-long monogamous pair-bonds, still mate much more freely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @01:24AM (1 child)
Lots of animals are monogamous. Ever seen "March of the Penguins?" Including animals you might not typically think of as monogamous, like lots of insects, which live only long enough in the adult form to find a mate, then lay eggs and die, or any other animal that lives only one season. Many of these are invertebrates.
Animals which take only one mate at a time (even if they might take a different mate in a future season) are also monogamous for this purpose, because once a mate is selected competition stops.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday August 07 2020, @01:45AM
Correction - lots of documentaries have perpetuated widely accepted myths. Actually analyzing the genetics of emperor penguins suggests that when the females finally join the males and chicks on the ice a whole lot of them don't don't even come back to their original mate and chick from earlier in the same season, much less from previous seasons. They certainly don't seem to care if its their own chick that they're raising - orphaned chicks are likely to be accidentally killed by females fighting over who gets to raise it.
As for the extremely short-lived animals... maybe you have a point on a technicality, but I don't think "only live long enough to mate once" is quite what anyone normally means by monogamy. And even among such insects I suspect many actually have time to mate several times that day, so that he partially-fertilizes many females, while she lays a clutch of eggs fertilized by several different males. Better genetic odds that way.
As for serial monogamy... you may have a valid point there, but there's a reason they don't just call it monogamy. Again, it's not generally what most people mean when they talk about animals being monogamous. I mean, technically a guy who sleeps with a different woman every night is being monogamous by that definition, so long as he never has an orgy.