Both magic and religion are based strictly on mythological tradition, and they also both exist in the atmosphere of the miraculous, in a constant revelation of their wonder-working power. They both are surrounded by taboos and observances which mark off their acts from those of the profane world. – Bronislaw Malinowski
One year ago today I published “February Q & A”, in which I answer the questions, “Do you know an escort who works in my city?”, “Would you please give us a few pointers on how to perform oral sex on a man?” and “Why do so many more escorts kiss nowadays?” But every so often I get a single (complex) question whose answer is enough for a whole column; this is one of them.
Why is sex such a taboo in human culture and civilization? I am in my 20s and I find that the cultural conditioning is not allowing the natural sex urge to express itself naturally. Which social, economic and political factors are responsible for such a situation? The expression of sex urge has become more artificial in modern society. How much role does pornography play in making sex experience artificial? Do you think marriage is necessary in our modern society?
I suspect the sexual taboo derives from two different but related factors. First, consider birth; once our ancestors recognized the link between sex and babies they (understandably) developed a sense of awe about it. To them, it was magic (which in the end really just means “anything we don’t understand”), so they devised rules and ceremonies around it (such as marriage and sacred prostitution). And once religion and law get into the act, everything becomes more complicated and artificial. The development of the concepts of private property and the ability to organize society on a larger level than the tribe allowed the growth of cities and nations and the appearance of social classes, and heredity became important; since it was the responsibility of each family to care for its old, children became vital not merely as heirs but as caregivers in old age. Thus taboos developed around the generative organs, from which descendants sprang; if an enemy or evil spirit wished to harm one, causing his genitals to malfunction via magic could be an effective way. The ancients believed that words (especially names) had magical power, so people became reluctant to speak aloud of the genitals or sex acts, and it became more important to hide the organs and behaviors from sight and to describe them with euphemisms. In women, the mammae were sometimes hidden as well since they produce milk without which babies die.
Once such trends start, they continue by themselves even after people have forgotten the reasons they began in the first place. The modern welfare/police states have managed to turn children into a liability rather than an asset and birth control has made it possible to avoid them, yet we still pretend that every sex act is a magical ritual which may produce the most valuable of resources. We no longer believe that words have magical power, so we instead ascribe pseudoscientific explanations to the imagined “harm” they can cause and continue to legislate against them. And we cloak taboos against nudity with meaningless words like “decency” and pretend that for a woman to undress in front of strange men will somehow cause harm to society as a whole.
The increasingly-artificial expression of sex has nothing to do with porn (which has existed since man discovered art and language) and everything to do with burgeoning legal penalties for those who express sexual urges in anything resembling a natural fashion. Religious fundamentalists use the old excuses, neofeminists use new ones equally unfounded in reality, and governments seize upon any excuse whatsoever to harass, impoverish and imprison citizens. We’ve added new crimes to the old, and devised ever-more-fiendish punishments like “sex offender registration” for those who sin against the Holy Ritual of Sex; we’ve added an entirely new field of civil law in which individual women (no matter how warped or unrepresentative their views) are the sole arbiters of acceptable male sexual behavior; and in many cases we have elevated these previously-unprecedented civil torts into criminal law. People (especially men) are therefore increasingly wary of stepping into any of the arbitrary, subjective and often-invisible snares governments have designed to entrap them, and now have to consider any interaction with others (even their own children) as a soldier considers crossing a minefield; any misstep could result in swift and total disaster. Is it any wonder modern sex is artificial?
Finally, marriage. Though I’m a strong believer in traditional marriage, I think it’s like the riding of horses: a novel curiosity accessible only to the very few. And for nations to expend the time, money and effort they do on its continuance is equivalent to mandating horse lanes on motorways. It is an anachronism, and needs to be abolished; simply put, government needs to get out of the marriage game entirely except in its role as the adjudicator of private contracts. All marriages should be contracts written and freely entered by citizens of legal age, the number, sex and conditions of which are determined by nobody other than the participants. The function of the registrar would merely be to inspect the contract to ensure it contained all the necessary provisions (such as child custody and alimony/support) and no illegal ones. If such a contract were broken, the injured party could sue in civil court just as he could if any other contract were breached. There would be no such thing as “family law” or “divorce court”, which would remove the unfairness inherent in the current system and make it difficult for either party to use his or her natural advantages (money, sex or children) as a crowbar with which to leverage a lopsided deal into which no sane person would enter without compulsion.
Great artical. Maggie. Is this a certian book or auther where you got your information from the first of the artical? Oh and i totle agree with you marrage concept.
One of the problems with having an exceptional memory is that I often remember facts, but can’t tell you where I got them. At UNO, I often wrote term papers first and then went to the library to find published materials that contained the facts I had quoted so I could put them into footnotes & bibliography, but they weren’t usually the same sources where I had originally discovered them. Sometimes I couldn’t find a source, which was really annoying because then I had to rewrite that page (much harder in those typewriter days than it is now) to exclude the unattributed fact.
Long story short: I’ve read so much on sex and folklore in the past 30+ years it could’ve come from anywhere, so I’m just presenting it as my own theory to be on the safe side.
That funny\”/ I`m such a musician i can`t read or write or remember systemativ stuff like a regular human being\”/. anyway I just went and looked up this Malinowski guy.Now he has some really interestying writing about sexuality and others “primitive cultures”. I might try to look up some of hios book, there from the 40s i think so might be just free on line??
Probably the number one reason women aren’t accepted fully as members of the military by their own male comrades. Because a minority of women will lodge false complaints of harassment – and because a minority of men give credibility to those complaints of harassment because they are guilty of engaging it – then EVERYONE on BOTH SIDES is suspect and neither side trusts the other. So men can “bond” and women can “bond” – but the two can’t bond with each other.
Don’t know how this is going to work out on submarines – which are now being “integrated” with women. When I reported to my first boat, I crossed the brow and the topside watch, a man half my size walked right up and grabbed me squarely in the crotch and squeezed until I felt my eyes bugging out of my head. But I was ready for this … and I took half a step forward and grabbed his crotch and squeezed … and said … “Any guy who does that to me usually gets his ass whipped – but you’re cute and I think I like you.”
He let go of me, smiled … and said … “Come aboard, you’re going to do fine here!” Then I went down the hatch of the boat, I’m assuming that the topside watch called the guys below and told them … “Hey don’t try the gay shit on Krulac, he MIGHT like it!” So they greeted me by telling me stories of all the ways they had had my mother the night before – and how lousy in bed she was (but how she was willing to do everything). This was a bit harder to take but I didn’t crack! 😛
Male / Male harassment in submarines of the homosexual variety was common. We all grabbed each other’s asses and … whatever. We all made suggestive comments to each other. It’s not that many of us were homosexual mind you … I think we did it for three reasons. Firstly – everyone thought we were gay anyway because we were on subs – so we played it up, especially around visitors. Second, it was a way to identify guys who couldn’t adapt – and on submarines you have to be able to adapt and deal with close living quarters and bad shit happening all the time. We couldn’t afford “riders” – everyone had to paddle the boat. Third – I think we really were some sexually perverted bastards.
I would put my life on the line for any of those guys – even today. Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to work on a submarine and talk to the young submariners – and they haven’t changed a bit.
I remember blowing “kisses” to the Marines who were guarding one of our nuke weapon’s loadouts. Marines have no sense of humor … they didn’t dig it at all. Soooo … I stopped … well, they had rifles on ’em and I didn’t.
>When I reported to my first boat, I crossed the brow and the topside watch, a man half my size walked right up and grabbed me squarely in the crotch and squeezed until I felt my eyes bugging out of my head. But I was ready for this … and I took half a step forward and grabbed his crotch and squeezed … and said … “Any guy who does that to me usually gets his ass whipped – but you’re cute and I think I like you.”
Has to be a man thing. I can’t imagine ever being greeted by another woman in such a fashion. Nor all the homosexual teasing. I just don’t see the point in it.
It’s a man thing. When I was a teenager I was the “mascot” of my cousin Jeff’s circle, and I think they sometimes forgot a girl was there because I never flew up in their faces for their acting like dudes. So even though I’m sure they self-censored somewhat, I got to see some guy-group behaviors most girls never see, and though I still think some of it’s strange I don’t judge them for it. Because of my understanding, a girlfriend once called me “the Jane Goodall of men”.
As a girl, Jane Goodall was inspired to study apes due to reading about another Jane. The one who became Lady Greystoke.
I’m a guy… and I’ve never understood a lot of this stuff either… I can hold my own, to a point… but I’ve never really understood why guys do it. It’s really very strange.
*shrug*
Also, I always laugh when I hear a woman say she wants to be treated like a man.
I say to her: no, you really don’t, cuz you have no idea how we are off to the side with each other. You just want the same legal rights, equality and opportunities…. but no woman wants to be treated the way men treat each other. At least…. I can not imagine there being one that really knows… would desire such treatment.
Cases in point: see the way brothers act, or the usual Father/Son dynamic. There is no way any woman with a spine, a brain or any self-respect is going to put up with that nonsense.
Then again, I grew up with a mother who didn’t put up with that nonsense, so maybe my worldview is a little warped.
haha.
-W
Maggie,
I cannot express how much I look forward to reading your column.
The question asked is one I have been struggling with for years. Your answer is so perceptive. I am saving your words so I can easily access and re read them.
Thank you so much.
Part of me thinks this a most excellent summary of our cultures’ current disfunction. That part leads me to bookmark this article for my own later reference. The other part of me strongly suspects you’ve been tricked into writing someone’s sociology/psychology assignment for them! ^_^. (Mind you, I bet they get an A. :p )
Thank you, guys! I’m blushing here! Responses like these are a big part of what gives me the energy to keep up this pace! 🙂
GentleDeath Here. Thanks maggie for posting your answer to my question.
You’re very welcome; thank you for giving me the opportunity to write it. 🙂
Maggie, Thanks for your excellent blog. I have been exploring your blog and reading posts when I get free time. It is great meeting you virtually in cyberspace 🙂
I know it’s been mentioned twice before in the comments (I’ve searched), but I recently read the book “Sex at Dawn”. I thought it was very interesting. It discussed how we as a species are probably not monogamous by nature, and how research into human sexuality has been tinged by this assumption that we are. While we assume that competition for sexual partners is done between males, we have evolved some interesting techniques for sperm competition so multiple male partners actually made sense. There were also comparisons to other primates (monogamous, polygynous and multiple partnered). It’s on my pile of books recommend to people instead of lending it to them (“it’s good, get your own”).
yes i just read that one also, very good work.
Great article.
The primary driver for the mess that is sex today, is indeed the concept of inheritable wealth and power. It threw the primal sexual balance totally off kilter, by making it desirable for successful men to also want tight controls over sex.
Organised religion, of any stripe, was quick to spot the above fact, and what better way to cement their places in society than by gaining control over the legitimacy of sex. By controlling who could have sex and when, the priests also indirectly controlled all the wealth and all the power.
Of course, this meant little or nothing to those without wealth or property i.e. most of the people. The revolting peasants could not be depended on to see the sense of these arrangements, so they had to be compelled (by violence if necessary) to comply, mainly to ensure that they did indeed remain as peasants. So came the Laws and Social Rules, which often made no sense, but were enforced by the rich and powerful, not because it was good or moral, but because it kept them rich and powerful.
All (or a majority) of men still liked the idea of prostitution. However it simply did not fit in the social construct that had grown up around sex. So it had to be condemned and destroyed. Naturally, in order not to inconvenience the rich and powerful, a loophole called concubinage was set up for their sexual benefit. Which is why even today prostitutes are legally persecuted, but mistresses are not, and often receive some degree of social sympathy.
Similarly, pornography gives the peasantry the idea that sex should be free and unrestrained, and of course this is intolerable for all the above reasons. Pornography does not espouse evil, but merely serves to highlight the oppressive and ridiculous nature of the laws and rules governing sex. Since ideas are the most dangerous thing of all, throughout history pornography has been suppressed even more ruthlessly than prostitution. Just ask the poor old Marquis de Sade, whose books were actually a fierce criticism of his society’s sexual hypocrisy, and caused him to be locked up for most of his life.
I wonder if the presence of sexually transmitted disease in ancient societies might also have played a role in developing sexual taboos? People may have noticed that the promiscuous were more prone to developing certain diseases, and interpreted it in magical or in religious, moral terms. Or simply, those cultures which (for any reason) developed sexual taboos ended up being healthier and more prosperous than the more liberal cultures because taboos lowered their exposure to STDs.
I know Randy Thornhill has studied the role of infectious disease on the development of culture and points out that the Sexual Revolution of the mid-20th century happened only after big improvements in sanitation and medication. That is, people started to abandon traditional sexual taboos in huge numbers after the risk of sexual infection decreased.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19046399
So one thing I’d love to find out is if, for example, isolated island cultures with lower risk of infectious disease from outsiders might have tended to be more sexually liberal than other cultures?
It seems unlikely, considering that prior to Roman times most diseases were somewhat localized and the type of syphilis common in Roman times seems to have been more of a nuisance than a scourge. Still, I’d love to see an historian tackle it!
Cool, didn’t know that.
I remember another thing, now that you mention Rome. The Emperor Augustus was bothered by the falling fertility rate (because an empire needs soldiers) and pushed very traditional anti-adultery and pro-fertility policies in part to bolster the population. Perhaps because Augustus himself was cheerfully fooling around, the laws didn’t take on and the Romans largely ignored them – quel surprise! But anyway perhaps there was an awareness that sexual activity had a major role in determining the military health of the empire because of its role in reproduction.
Que another sexual revolution when AIDS is cured. Que efforts to stop the cure from becoming available, with charges of side-effects, supernatural conspiracies, and more.
“I think it’s like the riding of horses: a novel curiosity accessible only to the very few.”
Sadly true about horseback riding. My Dad grew up on a ranch that we often worked weekends and summers. It’s still owned by the family with one of my cousins managing it. My family keeps a couple of Appaloosas out there and we help out as often as we can, and I’m glad my kids have been able to know what it’s like to do working riding. For pure pleasure though, there really is no feeling like riding alone in open country, and for some reason it’s especially good when a front is just coming in and the weather turns bad. Some elemental man against the universe thing I suppose. Aldo Leopold captured the feeling beautifully in Sketches Here and There in “On Top”, and also gave me my favorite quote “It must be poor life that achieves freedom from fear.”
One of these days, after we’re finished with the house and my husband doesn’t travel so much, we plan to get some horses. I boarded a mare for an acquaintance through most of the winter, and it just made me look forward to the time when we can have our own.
Sorry looks like I have been behind Maggie. How long have you and your husband been working on this house? Was this recently? I always wanted to ride a horse myself, they are interesting creatures. I have never been that captivated by the regular pets like dogs and cats, and prefer horses.
We worked on in from 2007-2009, then the depression killed our credit and we haven’t done anything since. Gods willing, we’ll be starting on it again next month.
Hope everything goes well 🙂
Let me guess your preference, a stud?
Oh, no, I’m not an experienced rider at all! A middle-aged mare is more my speed.
As a younger child, I rode horses regularly. Then a bunch of stuff changed, and I didn’t ride another horse for probably ten years. It’s been at least fifteen, and probably twenty, years since. I was in that guinea pig thing when I got to ride a horse again. Not since. The equestrianism wasn’t part of the experiment, they just happened at the same time.
Laura, were we together yet? Do you remember me being a lab rat?
Yes, we were together. From what I remember it was before late 1999 (when I got sober…that’s 1 of those what I call “dividing lines” in my life). I’m thinking around the mid-1990’s.
That sounds right. Either they were giving me the placebo, or that is the poorest excuse for allergy medicine ever. Well, I got $200 and a free check-up out of it, including X-rays.
“There would be no such thing as “family law” or “divorce court”, which would remove the unfairness inherent in the current system and make it difficult for either party to use his or her natural advantages (money, sex or children) as a crowbar with which to leverage a lopsided deal into which no sane person would enter without compulsion.”
AMEN to THAT Maggie. The book shows men AND WOMEN how to kick the guvment out of their marriage.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums2/tabid/369/forumid/216/scope/threads/Default.aspx
I would note that the people who MOST use sex as a weapon are women. Though that rather goes without saying. As men turn their backs on women more and more their leverage over men by using sex is disappearing.
Well, of course! And men use money. It’s a fool who doesn’t use his or her strongest weapon.
Are you on a Facebook Maggie? … just curious 🙂
Nope. I don’t trust Facebook any farther than I can throw a bank of servers. A couple of girls I know had personal and business accounts they thought separate, only to have Facebook start sending “friend suggestions” for their clients and family to each other!
That would be awkward.
I totally agree with freedom of contract regarding marriage (and would only add that marriage contracts ought to be allowed to contain some things now forbidden, such as having sex be part of the consideration).
But in wanting to eliminate family courts, I think you are making a big mistake. The most important difference between family courts and the rest of the court system is that they are private. If you ever have a messy divorce, would you really want all of your family’s dirty laundry to become public record, where your next boss, landlord, and neighbors will all see it? The threats Facebook poses to your privacy will look trivial by comparison.
Judges can seal transcripts, even in regular contract courts. All “family court” does is to perpetuate the myth that the marriage contract is magically “different”. The existence of “family court” is the #1 reason “no-fault divorce” didn’t do what its proponents claimed it would.
Maggie, I have this question. At what age do you think male and females are more sexually active? I understand that everyone is different. Is there any research that has been done on this matter?
I’m not sure I understand the question; more sexually active than what?
Well… I am asking generally at what age male and females peak sexually? In other words when do most males and females likely to engage in sexual act more (at peak)? For example I read once that females are more sexually active at age 35 or something. I am looking for any scientific research on that matter. If you can share your answer from your experience that is fine as well.
The much-ballyhooed concept of “sexual peak” isn’t at all scientific. Both sexes’ drive is strongest in the teens, but girls are so worried about pregnancy, reputation, finding a mate and stuff like that it cancels out. The so-called “sexual peak” women hit in our 30s results from that being the age when (traditionally) kids no longer require supervision, and so married women start getting their drives back (enhanced by being in a relationship), while unmarried women are hearing their biological clocks ticking and so appear to be more interested (even to themselves) in order to attract mates.
BODY: Only five more years to reproduce! GET MOVING, BITCH!!
OK maybe it isn’t that bad. That’s just what I thought of when I read that.
Is the biological clock ticking has truth or this also a concept people have that women fertility decrease after age 35? What is the age in women when they are most fertile? Thanks.
No, it definitely ticks; not only does fertility decrease, but also the chance of bringing forth a healthy baby (the chance of Down’s syndrome, birth defects, etc increases after 30).
If what I read was scientifically factual, a 17-year old male human is at peak sexual/fertility capacity, and a similar peak occurs in female humans at about 22-years old. That’s purely on a biological basis, of course.
Our wealth resources, social and moral conditioning changes that equation of optimality profoundly towards later life, especially where contraception is widely available, which leaves the prospect of progeny firmly in the arena of choice, rather than luck.
I believe that actually the taboo is a fundamental characteristic of sexuality. Without taboo there is no sexuality. I believe sexuality is about transgressing boundaries, usually related to shame concerning your genitals or other sensitive areas of your body. I believe people generally get sexually excited only when a taboo is broken. That’s why you see that pornography gets more and more transgressing. You see the same phenomenon in the sex lives of people. People do more and more sexual stuff that was unheard of in the past. Such as oral and anal sex. I think in a relationship you start simple because it is so very exciting to see each other’s naked bodies first of all. And then you gradually build up, eventually ending up at anal sex or swinging if you don’t watch out.
So my hypothesis is: there can be no sexuality without taboo. When all taboos disappear, sexuality will disappear. It simply wouldn’t be exciting anymore. So to keep sexuality exciting, people subconsciously create taboos around it.
Um, no. In cultures where people run around essentially naked, sex still happens. Also, there’s nothing new about oral or anal sex, or about orgies, or homosexuality, or swinging, or whatever else you think was “unheard of in the past.”
Maybe something that requires technology that didn’t exist back then, like vibrators, which are only 278 years old. Steampunkers should look this up; it’s really quite amazing.
But cultures go up and down with respect to shame. With respect to sexuality, cultures could become conservative, then progressive, then conservative, then progresssive, etc, It could be true that some people and cultures have no problems with nudity. But there still could be taboos, such as: having sex where the woman is on top, anal penetration, vaginal penetration, swinging, when a woman bends over while being naked.
I believe there always is some kind of taboo, some internal resistance that must be broken in sexuality. That’s why you see very progressive people doing all these fuzzy things, like swinging, having anal sex, sadomasochism. That’s their internal resistance that they have to break, or else they wouldn’t do it. Vanilla sex has become too boring for them. They have left that stage behind. It isn’t shocking anymore..
I have to agree with Kris butttt only in part.” It is the prohibition that makes anything precious”. While nudity is a cultural taboo for us here in the states and not so much in Europe and many other locales, sex itself is still taboo universally just varying in degrees based on where you are. But as far as the actual acts themselves you set him right brotha because i’m sure some if not all of our grandfathers, great grandmothers and so on were performing things in the bedroom then that would make a few of us blush now.
With concern to marriage I must say i’m conflicted. I think in our constant quest for innovation and pursuit of progressiveness that we can at times overlook the value of some older traditions. I think rather than just completely discarding marriage as an obsolete standard of a past time that maybe there ought to be a reappraisal of it first. Because though its value has changed, doesn’t mean that its now worthless. The purpose and value of marriage has morphed and varied with every generation, different area, tribe, family and culture. Though there are plenty of examples of how it has served humanity poorly (particularly women) i’m sure there are also some examples of how it may have helped us sustain as well. So I’m not ballyhooing for marriage because i’m not my self nor have I ever been, I am saying lets do a reassessment of it first. I tried to keep it short
the key word, Sailor, being your ‘essentially’.. which, if i am not mistaken, means here ‘not quite’
In most if not all cultures, people tend to wear SOMETHING, because of protection, because of shame, because you need a way to show which tribe you’re from, or some way to carry things while leaving your hands free, or simply because human beings like to decorate themselves. But in many societies, people are pretty casual about partial, “essential,” or even total nudity.
I’m glad I stumbled across your blog, I find your background and perspective very interesting. Though I vehemently disagree with your philosophy as to why the relationship between black men and “working girls” (how I discovered you) is so dysfunctional, I appreciate your candor nonetheless. I began following you on twitter and I hope to converse with you soon.
Disagreement is welcome here, Jay, as long as it’s expressed politely. 🙂
[…] http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/why-is-sex-such-a-taboo/ […]
Hi, I have just written a very short post on sex as taboo. I came upon this post. I really find it informative and good. And I’ve added this as a link in my post (if it is no problem for you).
I also like your writing and am following you.
No problem at all. Enjoy the blog! 🙂
[…] tones or euphemisms. Given the traditional importance of offspring, it’s no surprise that taboos developed around the act which creates them, nor that our ancestors couched everything related to that act in euphemisms and evasion and hid […]
[…] http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/why-is-sex-such-a-taboo/ […]
Forgive my intrusion ( please) but why the hell did (what you are here rather glibly calling) “our ancestors” have this “sense of awe” you mention? Are you saying that regular animals see no such (sex & baby) connection worthy of *awe” but “our ancestors” do? What is it about our ancestor would you say that now makes him capable of such a thing as awe? This really is an all too glib, even convenient account of things ,and in no way does it seem that interested in confronting with intellect intact the real roots of stuff as, heh heh..awesome and utterly fundamental to what is human as the sign, the esthetic, the sacred and the profane…
as ..heh heh, awesome as the sign aesthetic, the sacred.
Umm…you do know about that whole cerebral cortex thing, right? And you do understand that this is a 1000-ish word daily blog rather than a daily 600-page philosophy text? Or are you just a troll?
please, the reductio ad neurochem will not, repeat will not, suffice to explain human culture, and/or the existence of a scene-of-representation that humans have ‘always already’ found themselves on, but still take quite incredibly for granted every single time they utter, speak, or write a word… Am i a “troll” (so very sad to see you MM resort to such devices so swiftly) simply because i believe that your “1000-ish word”‘s worth consistently entails more than enough dedicated conceptuality for me to take dead seriously? Since when, Maggie,does the quality of philosophy/presence-of-a-mind depend on mere volume of verbiage? Good god, I am scarcely your enemy, i have even lost friends, one after the other in fact – by, i guess, way too boldly championing the mighty thing that you do in the face of their..their dysphemistic bromides..etc etc!.. as a devoted thinker of human origins however, i just thoroughly object to the notion that one day an otherwise instinctually-bound creature suddenly, somehow, became “awed” by the phenomena of nature, and everything else pretty much followed willy-nilly. ..
yrs cortextually,
Cerebralsky
(some call heem ‘the awed giraffe”)
Because we are literally stuck in the past. Conservatives who still find some way to convince themselves it’s bad due to the writings of a narcissistic middle eastern human being from a few thousand years ago based around society at that point in time.
If you don’t do the sex until the magic man deems it’s okay, u will go to the magic place and I guess live magically and have all the sex you want? As per the Muslim faith anyhow. Why don’t Christians get MADD virgins for killing Muslims I wonder.
Anyhow, their is a reason members of organized religion have a much lower IQ per capita than those who pander to their common sense.
That’s where it all began and unfortunately still is. USA is the worst of the worst. Many countries make fun of us for how primitive and immature we act in regard to something so natural and required for all life.
Don’t get me started on the war on drugs or feminism :p
Marraige is a joke. A religious institution by definition. A nice idea but two people devoting themselves to being life partners is the same in ALL but name.
Sexual activity aside of course. For men, monogomy goes against our natural being. It could be argued it’s unhealthy. Of course women call bs and can’t seem to wrap their narcissistic brains around the idea. They think it’s an arguement to get more sex. If only it were so simple.
Look to the animal kingdom (of which we are a part of) for countless examples. We as a people need to learn to seperate the primal urge to copulate from our “faithfulness” to our partner. If we come home to said person, and we make life choices and plans together… What does recreational sex have to do with it?
Of course this is wildly unpopular with the bible thumpers and even those conditioned by society to think this way. However if you give it a bit of thought; you will realize it’s obviously the natural way of things.
I certainly don’t advocate treating women as property as we once did, but women need to understand our needs are very very different and forcing men to abstain is equal to cruel and unusual punishment.
Before you get any ideas, I’ve been happily married and monogomous for 5 and 10 years. I will likely continue to be. I don’t agree with it but I do it because I know my wife would be hurt by it and doesn’t care to understand the truth behind it. Hopefully society will come to it’s senses regarding this and a plethora or other things which hold us back and keep us stuck in last century.
I venture to assume once science finds life outside earth and organized religion is hit with a “truth” it can’t contort it’s writings around to explain away – we will start to slowly see these things come to fruition.
Until then, apparently a really bored magic man in the sky is the ultimate sadist, and voyeur who must be bored to death. All that magic power and he’s concerned with when and how we scrump. As if.
[…] http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/why-is-sex-such-a-taboo/ […]
[…] Maggie McNeill, a former sex worker who runs a blog about ‘prostitutes, our rights and experiences and the way society oppresses the world’s only female-dominated profession while self-proclaimed “feminists” support the outrage’, thinks that: […]
Very interesting read!
Especially liked the link from primitive attitudes towards sex related acts for procreation to the development of ‘rituals’ and finally, to the modern legislation of today.
Subscribed 🙂
Nature has two basic goals, to anthropomorphise her a bit:
A) Mix the gene pool of the human social group to the maximum degree (hybrid vigour promotes survivabilty and preserves desirable genetic traits)
B) Ensure that the next generation has an optimal survival chance to reach maturity and breed by incentivising the parents to care for them
Nature does this by having three sets of instincts in each Homo Sapiens: the urge to seek mates, the urge to bond with mates, and the urge to socialise outside mating.
Individuals of both genders will respond to/experience different degrees of each urge, creating an “instinctive” behavioural niche for that person, each with a role in the emergent behaviour of the whole group : a tribe.
Most males experience a powerful urge to mate, which is both insistent and rapidly increasing over time, unless satisfied by sexual behaviour. They also can be stimulated to mate by the proximity, physical appearance or behaviour of a potential or current mate.
Most females experience a periodic urge to mate, regulated by their menstrual cycle, which waxes and wanes. They also can be stimulated to mate by the proximity, physical appearance or behaviour of a potential or current mate.
Both genders have a “proximity” response to mates; less noticable in males (always on) but more noticeable in females (cyclic).
Once a mate is found, there is a period of intense desire for sexual behaviour, and proximity, which gives rise to a sexually induced deepening social bond, much more powerful than a non-sexual social bond. This is nature’s hook to breed. Social bonds formed this way give parental incentives to nurture, protect and raise the offspring, while the sexual drives are lowered as a result, allowing other bonding to become a dominant drive.
The snag is this : nature wants the gene pool mixed up. Permanent mating bonds get in the way. They fulfill the breeding goal, but not the diversity goal.
Nature takes a 2-pronged attack : the always building male sexual drive, and the urge in the female towards sexual variety/promiscuity, and the urge to parental care. These three drives *actively war with the pair bond*. Depending on the individuals responses, the pair bond may break; another partner may become involved with the two, rebalancing the sexual drives, gender vs gender.
In other individuals, with a low impulse to pairbonding, may be promiscuous. In males this is encouraged by a naturally non-cyclic sexual drive, in females by higher response to the sexual drives both cyclic and “proximity” based. (“typical man”/”hooker gene”)
In the promiscuous females, this serves the tribe by blunting excess male sexual desire, which also mitigates excess agression, stopping that becoming disruptive to the tribes social unit. They in turn are rewarded by social, resource and self satisfaction advantages.
Finally, individuals with lower sexual urges, but higher social bonding drives become the “den parents” of any unwanted, orphaned or temporarily creched offspring of the tribe. These individuals, while not breeding themselves, find this satisfying, and contribute an increased chance of survival to the tribe’s young.
This is just our *instincts* at work, and it makes tribes an emergent behaviour, since tribalism is a survival-level advantage. While that was vital during the first 240,000 years of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, in the last 10,000 we have moved past that into “civilised” behaviour; the tribe is no longer the predominant model of human social behaviour.
Our instincts, which are hugely powerful motivators, are still 100% intact.
But… “civilised values” are pushing us, artificially, against them almost 90% in the opposite direction, to the extent that permanent monogamous breeding relationships are the only so-called “valid” result for us modern humans.
That’s a message that is profoundly at odds with the full spectrum of “natural tribal instincts”. And the cognitive dissonance and anxiety this causes is tearing “civilised society” (which is essentially an *artificial* concept) and many individuals to pychological rags.
[…] http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/why-is-sex-such-a-taboo/ […]
[…] http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/why-is-sex-such-a-taboo/ […]
This post appeared before I discovered you, Maggie, and this blog, but your “Thursday Throwback” link today brought me to it. Better late than never, to be cliché about it.
What really got my attention are your views on marriage, which mirror virtually exactly my own views on it that I’ve held at least since the 1990s, and being a “victim” more times than I care to think about of the current marriage regime.
I think it is essential to get the state out of marriage. Marriage should be an agreement between two (or more than two, if that’s what the participants want) people, and based on binding, enforceable contractual provisions agreed to and freely entered into by the parties.
My eyes were first opened about the folly of marriage as it’s currently structured in my first marriage some 43 years ago. My first wife was Quebecoise. Quebec has a form of marriage based on agreements between the parties, which seemed sensible to both of us. So she and I dutifully and hopefully drew up our agreements, only to have the notary (attorney) who reviewed them throw them all out and say the province has certain formulaic agreements (which struck us as odd both in their wording and having them forced on us) and we had to use those.
Adding to the mockery of the idea of adults deciding what is best for themselves emerged when it came time to dissolve the marriage in the U.S. I quickly learned that marital contracts are the only contracts that depend entirely on the whimsy of a judge in what is cynically called “family court” (an oxymoron if there ever was one), and simply crossing a state (or provincial) line can alter the entire treatment of the parties. It mattered not even a little what our Quebec agreements called for.
Based on that and subsequent experiences, I am firmly of the view that the state has no business being involved with marriage. For me, the state’s presence taints the entire relationship and is tantamount to inviting some malevolent voyeur into one’s bedroom to kibbitz and direct the couple’s intimate life. While some role for the state might exist for the protection of children born of the marriage, the state’s track record in that area is deplorable so even that intrusion is hard to justify.
I’ve (in all seriousness) told prospective mates that I’d sooner adopt them than marry them. Especially for men in this country, my experience shows them to be dead meat in a contested divorce and once more the ill intent of the state makes its presence felt. Lives are routinely ruined by its presence.
I don’t know what it will take to change the very nature and structure of marriage to incorporate these ideas, and I’m not hopeful those changes are anywhere imminent, but until they’re brought about all parties must approach marriage in the spirit of *caveat emptor.*