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: 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!
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(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.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(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.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(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.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(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.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(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.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(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..