Re: Memes and sexuality

From: Aaron Lynch (aaron@mcs.net)
Date: Fri Jul 14 2000 - 13:45:55 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Philosophy of Technology: scale and meaning; sameness and dif ference part 1"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA10524 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:50:06 +0100
    Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000713091550.020beb10@popmail.mcs.net>
    X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
    Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:45:55 -0500
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net>
    Subject: Re: Memes and sexuality
    In-Reply-To: <396B2965.78B96AB3@qssmeds.com>
    References: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0007110839110.2376-100000@koko.umd.edu>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    At 10:04 AM 7/11/00 -0400, Lise Maring wrote:
    >Hmmm. Touchy subject here. Possibly it needs to be remembered that for
    >most 'animals' sexual activity is seasonal whereas for humans (and possibly
    >most primates?) it is....well, not necessarily so. I have a feeling we
    >wouldn't get much else done if we didn't repress our 'natural drives' to
    >some extent and had males constantly fighting over females? Very
    >disruptive in your average business office.
    >
    >Just a quiet, in-the-background member of the list who couldn't resist
    >putting in her two cents worth on this one,
    >
    >Lise

    Lise,

    It's easy to frame the issue in terms of 20th century concerns such as
    office productivity. And office productivity does seem to be one of the
    reasons that office romances and flirtations have been discouraged at
    times--not to mention the liability issues that have arisen in the US over
    sexual harassment. But sexual repression goes back much longer than humans
    have been working in business offices.

    It seems to me that one of the key events in the development of sexual
    repression may have been the discovery some time in the past 100,000 years
    that sex causes pregnancy and childbirth. The connection sounds quite
    obvious to us today, but Malinowski and others have documented a
    long-isolated society that apparently did not know about the connection
    (See Malinowski's _The Sexual Live of Savages_, 1932, Beacon Press.).
    Pregnancy only sometimes results from sex, and then is only apparent after
    a considerable delay. In early "primitive" societies such as the one
    Malinowski studied, there would have been no "control group" for one to
    observe either: children began a sexual free for all within full sight of
    adults starting long before puberty. Nudity taboos were also a "recent"
    development in evolutionary terms.

    But now, suppose that a mother and father several thousand years ago had
    the knowledge of what causes pregnancy. They consider the possibility of
    their own children following their "natural drives," and can foresee
    reproductive consequences for it. Do they have any reasons to want to
    regulate or delay or prevent reproduction by their own children? Can those
    preferences lead parents to want to repress their children's sexual
    activity? If so, will they want to repress the daughter's and son's
    activities equally, or do they have a stronger desire to teach repression
    to one sex or the other?

    --Aaron Lynch

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 14 2000 - 13:50:53 BST