Sasha Chislenko wrote:
> At 11:01 AM 6/28/99 , Dave Sill wrote:
> >Joseph Bloch <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > However, I would sooner adapt society to match our evolutionary
> > > psychologies, rather than trying to change our psychologies to match the
> > > demands of our society.
> >How could society adapt to the male sex drive? And how would that make it
> >any less controlling?
> Well, the society is enforcing very hypocritical behavior,
> I believe quite unusually for any society, and especially for
> one calling itself "free". Expression of natural sexual interest
> (that women are still trying to cause) is considered shameful to
> the point of criminality (sexual harassment), recreational sex is
> still frowned upon as sinful (though, admittedly, not more so than
> in Islamic countries - though I find that even communist Russia had
> a more relaxed attitude here), prostitution is discouraged to the
> point where it's not practically available, etc.
FWIW, I disagree on your assessment of sexual harassment as being simply an "expression of natural sexual interest", and I think the American courts, as a rule, do also. For a workplace case, for example, to be considered harassment, there must be some persistence which creates a hostile environment. That's the theory, anyway. I'm sure that it's abused (on both sides) in specific cases, pretty often.
I agree that there's a lot of hypocrisy with regards to recreational sex, especially as compared to portrayals of violence in the media. But I think that a lot of that stems from a desire to shield children from sexual messages. With that in mind, the issue is much more complicated. I'm certainly not suggesting this of you, but some "sexual freedom fighters" would go as far as to say that "consensual sex" with children (as if there could be such a thing) is okay. If you agree that it's not, then it comes down to an argument about where to draw the line. And there will always be people trying to push the line in the other direction.
> It is quite possible that if the society was less hypocritical and
> more permissive to people's expressions of sexuality, and its
> satisfaction, then both men and women would have more fun and freedom,
> and spend less time struggling with the absence of opportunities for
> sexual expression.
Doubtful. I tend to think that just as the male's libido is
largely genetic, there is an equally strong evolved force
among women that make them protective and defensive of their
sexuality. There are several recent books on evolutionary
psychology on this topic. I've read one called "Evolution
of Desire" (review at
http://www.chrismaloney.com/hobbies/books/evolution_desire.html). I think that a good bit of the struggle for and against "sexual freedom" that we see about us is just the age old conflict between evolved sexual strategies of men and women. As long as there are differences, there will always be conflict.
> Incidentally, the types that shape social norms against human
> natural psychology, are standing on the way of many other freedoms,
And so, per my above statement, perhaps "the types" that are shaping social norms against *your* human natural psychology are merely trying to shape it to be more in line with *their* natural psychology.
> and these issues seem to be generally related, in terms of rational
> attitude to human nature and social regulation, and issues of
> liberty - so any progress in sexual (and generally behavioral)
> liberation seems to help the transhumanist agenda.
> On the personal level, I would note that spending a few years with
> a large number of attractive women, in dance classes, nude resorts,
> etc., helps to develop control over sexual impulses and not get too
> distracted by any sight. A fun way to get some self-control :-)
> Sasha Chislenko <http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html>
-- Chris Maloney http://www.chrismaloney.com "Knowledge is good" -- Emil Faber