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 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)