Sex In Public

[blue_cristal]

Probably the majority of social animal species have no sexual inhibitions ( they do not wear cloths to start with ) at all since they make sex whenever they are ready for it and in any opportunity regardless if they are alone or surrounded by other members of the same species.

 

So regarding to this matter, I have two questions ( Please try to support your argument with at least some scientific evidence ) :

 

1 ) Is there any current human culture whose members are totally un-inhibited in relation to sex so they do it indifferent if they are in public or not ?

 

2 ) Does sexual inhibition originate from religious and cultural indoctrination –or- is there some different or additional cause ?

[blue_cristal]

Gosh ... are people so prudish to discuss this topic ?

[w=f[z]]

1 ) Is there any current human culture whose members are totally un-inhibited in relation to sex so they do it indifferent if they are in public or not ?

 

2 ) Does sexual inhibition originate from religious and cultural indoctrination –or- is there some different or additional cause ?[/font][/size][/b]

 

 

Seems like I saw a documentary of a tribe in South America where one day out of the year everyone intermingled in an orgy-type thing. The rule was that a woman couldn't say no for any reason. It was a way for the tribe to "share" and to stress the importance of sharing. Other "flings" would happen throughout the year too, but they set aside this special day for a huge "swapping party."

 

Then one day some guy got jealous and ruined the whole thing for the tribe....

 

 

True story - no joke.

 

Cheers

[the tree]

Meh, I'm not so sure about the premise of the topic, maybe there's a biology expert around here somewhere who can clear things up with a reliable source. I'm also not an anthropologist and I don't think anyone else here is so it'd be difficult to answer with authority.

 

You can't expert brilliant answers in GD, maybe if you asked a moderator to move this onto one of the science-centred boards then people will notice it quicker.

[blue_cristal]

You can't expert brilliant answers in GD, maybe if you asked a moderator to move this onto one of the science-centred boards then people will notice it quicker.

 

The reason I added it to the General Discussion is to debate it scientifically and, at the same time, use this discussion to raise awareness about the human unique and bizarre sexual inhibition ( it seems that we are the only species that is ashamed of sex ).

 

However, it would be interesting to find out if there are exceptions.

 

If I remember well, some Indian ancient civilizations actually had an inverse point of view. They saw sex as something “divine” and “sacred”. They even made statues in their temples depicting all sort of sexual positions between lovers.

 

Another fact that I just recalled is that after cleaning up the ruins of the ancient roman city Pompeii, destroyed by a volcanic eruption, they found wall paintings depicting sexual activity in almost all dinner rooms of the rich families !

[mooeypoo]

The romans had lots of public orgies in their time, and regarded sexual intercourse with women as a tool, but with other men as a form of "art" of a sort. The body image they had was incredible, they regarded the human body as the creation of the gods.

 

It's a good question about human inhibition, I think we should take into acount that in our day and age, the perception of the human body is very low. We have tiny thin women in magazines stating what a woman "should" look like (and not many do look like that..), or hugenormous penises in sex movies showing us what men are "supposed" to look like (and not many men look like that either).. the result is that the individual perception of their own body image is a lot lower than it used to be. Social changes created these inhibitions, I believe.

 

Think of the 1700/1800: women wore dresses that were meant to hide every inch of their body other than the cleavage.. women with a slightly-bigger-than-average cleavage were considered whores. So, I think society taught us to be prudish. The current state of diseases like bulimia and

anorexia also show how poor the body image is in our time.

 

 

~moo

[insane_alien]

basically, it is religions that have treated it as a necessary evil. this has sort of been engrained in societal conciousness over the centuries. there is no real reason for sex to be private other than preference. and to be honest, i like a bit of privacy myself. i'm not so sure i could do it, for instance in theTE](3) A top quark can't possibly be more dense than a gold nuclei because it is made of only itself. (disregarding any bizarre fringe physics)

 

this is where you are wrong. a gold nuclei is madeof l middle of a busy street.

 

as for 1/ i honestly don't know. it would seem that nearly universally, sex is a private matter. either in the house/hut/dwelling of other kind. or away from other people. maybe it goes back to how we done it as apes. i'm not sure how the behaviour would evolve but its likely given the universalness of iTE](3) A top quark can't possibly be more dense than a gold nuclei because it is made of only itself. (disregarding any bizarre fringe physics)

 

this is where you are wrong. a gold nuclei is madeof lt(well besides the ritualistic orgies).

 

2/ up until very recently, religion has been the dominant rolemodel for society. and in a lot of the world, it still is.its effects are still existing even in people who have broken off from religion for quite a while. it is still a huge influence on many many people and their habits.

 

i have a question about the ritualistic orgies: were they only inclusive of known people(like everyone in a village or a circle of friends) or was it a free for all for anyone to just join in? it has a bearing on a little thought thats going round my mind.

 

if they were closed to those outside a certain group then it would be pretty much the same situation as a couple(just some more people involved) but if its public(anyone can walk in) then it would be uninhibited sex pretty much this would indicate that it was religion that placed the shame on sex.

 

not that everyone is ashamed of sex. i'm certainly not. and i would guess(based on who i know) that only maybe 10% of people are actually uncomfortable talking about it.

[Klaynos]

Small asside, are humans the only animal capable of the true emotion of being ashamed, and surely to be ashamed you need a community in which to be it in the first place... Has any research been done on great ape emotions including being ashamed?

[mooeypoo]

I'm not sure, but I think dogs exhibit a "shame" behavior when they do something bad... it may just be fear, though. I wonder if there are any researches out there about that.

[blue_cristal]

basically, it is religions that have treated it as a necessary evil. this has sort of been engrained in societal conciousness over the centuries. there is no real reason for sex to be private other than preference.

 

I agree.

 

However, it is known that when animals are engaged in sexual courtship and sexual activity they are so concentrated in their action that they become almost oblivious to dangers, usually predators or rival competitors. And humans can be very treacherous and vicious competitors to each other sometimes. So I am not sure if apart from the powerful influence of religious indoctrination, an additional reason why we like private sex is also a protective measure against rivals and disruption.

 

and to be honest, i like a bit of privacy myself.

 

Yes, but how do you know that your preference is not conditioned by religious indoctrination ?

 

Or, alternatively / additionaly, a defence mechanism against potential rival attacks or disruption ?

 

as for 1/ i honestly don't know. it would seem that nearly universally, sex is a private matter. either in the house/hut/dwelling of other kind. or away from other people. maybe it goes back to how we done it as apes (well besides the ritualistic orgies).

 

Well, our close evolutionary relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees, have sex in the open and frequently in front of other members of the group (“in public”). Males and females have sex with several partners though there is a degree of sexual selection. Females prefer dominant and strong males.

 

In bonobos, most sexual activity instead of having a reproductive purpose, it is rather a conflict-resolution mechanism aimed to bring peace between members of the group. So, looking from outside, it looks like a permanent “orgy”. Everybody has sex with everybody, which includes homosexual sex and sex between infants and adults. In this species, females seem to be the dominant gender.

 

Here is what I found in “http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/primates.html”:

 

“Context: Bonobos live in groups of 50 to 120 animals. Bonobo society appears to be female-dominated. Male status is linked to that of his mother. Older females occupy the highest rank. The strongest social bonds are between females. Raising offspring is an exclusively female activity.

In Bonobo society sexual excitement and aggression rates are higher at feeding times. Dominant males may delay sharing food with females who are not sexually disposed. Cofeeding takes place between intimates. Among Bonobos, embracing, friendly touching and sexual contact rates jump after an aggressive incident. According to zoologist Frans de Waal, "The majority of mounts and matings occur in tense situations." "©onflict resolution is the more fundamental and pervasive function of Bonobo sex." Sex in Bonobo society is definitively a mechanism for keeping the peace.”

 

2/ up until very recently, religion has been the dominant rolemodel for society. and in a lot of the world, it still is.its effects are still existing even in people who have broken off from religion for quite a while. it is still a huge influence on many many people and their habits.

 

Indeed. Even people, who got rid of dogmatic religious beliefs, are still unconsciously conditioned on sexual matters. And worst, most non-religious people are not even aware that they still have hidden dogmas of religious origin ( sexual taboos ) ingrained in their brains and influencing their sexual behaviour.

 

i have a question about the ritualistic orgies: were they only inclusive of known people(like everyone in a village or a circle of friends) or was it a free for all for anyone to just join in? it has a bearing on a little thought thats going round my mind.

 

I do not know either.

 

However, sex in public does not need necessarily to equate with “public orgies” ( our natural sexual behaviour probably is not as promiscuous as bonobos [ though I am not sure ]). It could simply mean that couples would not need to hide or curb their sexual behaviour in public.

 

not that everyone is ashamed of sex. i'm certainly not. and i would guess(based on who i know) that only maybe 10% of people are actually uncomfortable talking about it.

 

It depends on which country you are talking about. In theocratic dictatorships or countries where monotheistic religions have dominance probably most people feel uncomfortable talking about.

 

An opposite situation would be found in highly secularized countries like Sweden, Finland, etc.

[blue_cristal]

Small asside, are humans the only animal capable of the true emotion of being ashamed, and surely to be ashamed you need a community in which to be it in the first place... Has any research been done on great ape emotions including being ashamed?

 

Probably individuals of other social primates feel ashamed when they cheat or transgress the rules of the group but I need to search for confirmation and more solid evidence in scientific literature.

[blue_cristal]

I'm not sure, but I think dogs exhibit a "shame" behavior when they do something bad... it may just be fear, though. I wonder if there are any researches out there about that.

 

I think that shame is a special type of fear. It is a fear that comes from transgression of social rules or disobedience to a dominant individual ( parent, leader, etc ).

[gcol]

 

1 ) Is there any current human culture whose members are totally un-inhibited in relation to sex so they do it indifferent if they are in public or not ?

 

 

You might investigate what appears to be a recently publicised british activity called "dogging". This appears to be a particularly exhibitionist swinger activity. Perhaps there is money to be made organising participatory package holidays....

 

In this case though, I think copulating in public merely adds an extra frisson to it, and they know it is not a cultural norm.

 

Seriously, I think there is a big difference between exhibitionism, which is a personality trait, and activities that form part of a cultural norm that are labelled exhibitionism only in someone elses judgement.

[blue_cristal]

You might investigate what appears to be a recently publicised british activity called "dogging". This appears to be a particularly exhibitionist swinger activity. Perhaps there is money to be made organising participatory package holidays....

 

In this case though, I think copulating in public merely adds an extra frisson to it, and they know it is not a cultural norm.

 

Seriously, I think there is a big difference between exhibitionism, which is a personality trait, and activities that form part of a cultural norm that are labelled exhibitionism only in someone elses judgement.

 

I think that there are, at least, three different types of human behaviours regarding sex:

 

1 ) A behaviour that obeys and it is modelled by cultural norms ( like continuous or prolonged sexual repression for instance [ though some countries are more liberal in relation to sex behaviour in nowadays. However "liberal" does not equate necessarily with natural. ] ) which usually is a deviance from natural human sexual behaviour. Since I think that most of the current cultural models which the majority of the world human population obeys are unhealthy deviances from natural human behaviour, then the logic consequence of it is that someone who behaves accordingly with his cultural norms is probably abnormal in terms of his human nature. And we all know that if we are in a state of permanent conflict with our innate nature we end up probably as neurotic individuals and this will reflect on the health of the society we live in.

 

2) Idiosyncratic personal behaviour – this is an individual behaviour that could be different to, both, cultural norm and natural human behaviour. It could be a quite bizarre one and even a very psychopathologic one.

 

The origin of such unusual behaviour could be:

 

A) genetic – the individual was born with a rare mutation that drastically alters his sexual behaviour.

-or-

B) Most probably a reactive psychopathologic wrong development, consequence of human bizarre cultural norms impinged by religious / cultural indoctrination that disturbs dramatically the development of healthy natural human behaviour.

 

 

3) A natural human behaviour. It is conceivable that a minority of the population were fortunate enough to escape from cultural indoctrination either by living in remote places were “civilization” has little influence in moulding or influencing their sexual behaviour –or- individuals with such a strong and independent personality that they were mostly shielded against the pernicious cultural influence despite living in big societies. But obviously they have to have strong acting skills ( dissimulation ) as well to cheat the oppressive system and pretend being obedient to its tyrannical rules.

 

The bizarreness of human condition means that what we call by “normal cultural sexual behaviour” is actually a perversion of natural innate human behaviour. And conversely, people who were moulded by our bizarre cultural norms will misjudge as healthy natural sexual behaviour as a “perverted” one when they accidentally stumble with it.

 

That is why it is urgent that science finds out what exactly is our healthy and genuine natural sexual behaviour.

 

By culture obliging humans to behave unnaturally it may turn them into pathologic beings which can reflect in their social relationship and can cause undesirable or even serious conflicts. For instance, it is conceivable that excessive violence might be linked to excessive sexual repression in a significant degree.

[blue_cristal]

You might investigate what appears to be a recently publicised british activity called "dogging". This appears to be a particularly exhibitionist swinger activity. Perhaps there is money to be made organising participatory package holidays....

 

In this case though, I think copulating in public merely adds an extra frisson to it, and they know it is not a cultural norm.

 

The problem with such behaviour is that it is not natural either.

 

If you behave sexually in a way that meant to be just a defiance or reaction to oppressive or deviant cultural norms then you probably are mixing your sexual behaviour ( which already might be a deviant one caused by cultural norms and not a natural one ) with negative emotions like anger, resentment or an artificial way to get high sexual excitement.

[gcol]

The problem with such behaviour is that it is not natural either.

 

I was generally with you until you wrote that, because that is merely a matter of your own personal opinion.

 

Supposing you had said that about homosexuality for example. You would be jumped on from a great height by the pink brigades. Logically and scientifically probably quite rightly, too.

 

I wonder if you first asked for evidence, then implied that whatever the evidence, you had already reached a conclusion. Pity, that.

[blue_cristal]

You might investigate what appears to be a recently publicised british activity called "dogging". This appears to be a particularly exhibitionist swinger activity. Perhaps there is money to be made organising participatory package holidays....

 

In this case though, I think copulating in public merely adds an extra frisson to it, and they know it is not a cultural norm.

 

The problem with such behaviour is that it is not natural either.

 

If you behave sexually in a way that meant to be just a defiance or reaction to oppressive or deviant cultural norms then you probably are mixing your sexual behaviour ( which already might be a deviant one caused by cultural norms and not a natural one ) with negative emotions like anger, resentment or an artificial way to get high sexual excitement.

 

I was generally with you until you wrote that, because that is merely a matter of your own personal opinion.

 

Supposing you had said that about homosexuality for example. You would be jumped on from a great height by the pink brigades. Logically and scientifically probably quite rightly, too.

 

I wonder if you first asked for evidence, then implied that whatever the evidence, you had already reached a conclusion. Pity, that.

 

I apologise Gcol, I did not phrase well this post, that is why you misinterpreted it.

 

It was not a categorical statement as you might think, because I used the cautious words “probably” and “might” but I think you skipped them.

 

So let me rephrase it.

 

I am not saying that none of these cases of “dogging” were executed by people genuinely and sexually healthy ( natural ) trying to defy the system. It could well be that most cases of “dogging” are performed by healthy people.

 

What I meant to say is that just because some people challenge the sexual moral system by making public sexual acts does not necessarily mean that every single one is “uncontaminated” by the indoctrination that the system imposed on them very early in their lives.

 

For instance, it is known that some forms of exhibitionism or sex in public places might be sexual deviations or fetiches( sexual deviations are mostly caused by systematic sexual repression ).

 

So if they genuinely do “dogging” as way of defying and protesting against a repressive and unnatural moral system then they probably are people with a healthy and natural sexual behaviour.

 

However if they do it because it is the only way they can satisfy their sexuality than almost certainly is a deviation though probably not a harmful one.

 

However, whatever the case might be, I am not blaming anybody ( and nor I could ). Because even the deviants are victims themselves either from a oppessive and twisted moral system or unfortunate genetic mutations.

 

I hope I made myself clear this time.

[immortal]

 

If I remember well, some Indian ancient civilizations actually had an inverse point of view. They saw sex as something “divine” and “sacred”. They even made statues in their temples depicting all sort of sexual positions between lovers.

 

 

Well that kind of thinking has changed now if you show any sexual behaviour in public you will be taken to the jail and the media will make a huge story out of it. I really can't figure out why humans are so inhibited about sex. I think sperm competition has decreased in humans. Any sexual activity twice in a week is good because it increases your level of immunoglobulins by 31% and you will be more healthier. So in this society if you show any abnormal sexual behavior you will be really in an ugly place. I think we should blame the politcians for implementing such stupid rules.

[blue_cristal]

If I remember well, some Indian ancient civilizations actually had an inverse point of view. They saw sex as something “divine” and “sacred”. They even made statues in their temples depicting all sort of sexual positions between lovers.

 

Well that kind of thinking has changed now if you show any sexual behaviour in public you will be taken to the jail and the media will make a huge story out of it. I really can't figure out why humans are so inhibited about sex. I think sperm competition has decreased in humans. Any sexual activity twice in a week is good because it increases your level of immunoglobulins by 31% and you will be more healthier. So in this society if you show any abnormal sexual behavior you will be really in an ugly place. I think we should blame the politcians for implementing such stupid rules.

 

Hi Immortal

 

It is good to know someone who coincidently lives in the place.

 

Have you some information about which period of Indian history such a worship of sex took place and when and why it finished ?

 

Has it something to do with the muslim or christian ( british ) domination of India and the imposition of their twisted moral systems ?

[someguy]

if you look at animals they will have sex in front of each other, but usually also the alpha male gets all the women and the others get nothing. Unless of course they go into hiding. so this could be a reason why privacy would exist. But then with humans the alpha male eventually became also the leader the chief eventually the king, the emperor and then elected official. and somewhere along there there would be too many women for just one man and the leader would need to admit that in order to keep having many subjects you need to give them wives and have them bear children and probably even at this point doing it in public might start a fight where some other male would try to take the girl from you so doing it in private became a better choice. As for clothes maybe it just became habit from it being too cold, maybe only the chief had clothes and it became then the "in" thing to do, or maybe it was just because wearing clothes would reduce the chances of women being raped so their men made them wear clothes. I know that wasn't very scientific or based on facts but it's some possible answers to your question at least.

[immortal]

Well I don't like history too much. AFAIK this kind of sex worship were written in scripts in which a god named Krishna had 16000 wives and there are similar stories like that and when people read about this they started making female sculptures in temples and followed the same principle. I think everything started when people where divided according to their castes. It was started by the Aryans at a time before christ and a higher caste called the Brahmins(very supertitious) had a negative impression on women and they considered any women without a husband should commit suicide so that she will live happily in afterlife and these principles were forced on common people by the foreign invaders. I don't think both the british as well as the muslims imposed this kind of moral system because both had a good impression about sex however they imposed those moral systems of the Brahmins. This shows that it is more a cultural one than biological. I really don't know why this kind of unhibited sex strategy has been adopted by individuals. If you develop a better strategy than that then your strategy will be selected.

[blue_cristal]

if you look at animals they will have sex in front of each other, but usually also the alpha male gets all the women and the others get nothing.

 

First of all, not all animal species have alpha males. Usually only social animals have them and not always or, at least, sometimes they have a “moderate” alpha male.

 

Bonobos, for instance, have a matriarchal system so probably they do not have an alpha-male.

 

Secondly, in the cases where they have a strong alpha male, he may get all the females but he cannot avoid some of them cheating with other males.

 

Unless of course they go into hiding. so this could be a reason why privacy would exist.

 

Just few dozens of millennia ago, when human lived in small groups, they used to live in a common habitation like a big cave. It is unlikely that they would have any kind of privacy in these circumstances.

 

 

But then with humans the alpha male eventually became also the leader the chief eventually the king, the emperor and then elected official. and somewhere along there there would be too many women for just one man and the leader would need to admit that in order to keep having many subjects you need to give them wives and have them bear children and probably even at this point doing it in public might start a fight where some other male would try to take the girl from you so doing it in private became a better choice.

 

We still fight and compete for females. Monogamy did not eliminate competition.

 

 

As for clothes maybe it just became habit from it being too cold, maybe only the chief had clothes and it became then the "in" thing to do, or maybe it was just because wearing clothes would reduce the chances of women being raped so their men made them wear clothes. I know that wasn't very scientific or based on facts but it's some possible answers to your question at least.

 

A rapist would not have much difficulty with woman using a skirt or a gown. Some people say that cloths make women less tempting. Currently, however, clothes are so sexy that they actually increase sexual desire.

[Phi for All]

Some people say that cloths make women less tempting. Currently, however, clothes are so sexy that they actually increase sexual desire.

Clothes have always been sexy (even the working classes had party outfits) by denying total observation while hinting at what's beneath. I could argue that modern clothes can be less sexy since they often leave nothing to the imagination, the most powerful aphrodisiac.

[blue_cristal]

I could argue that modern clothes can be less sexy since they often leave nothing to the imagination, the most powerful aphrodisiac.

 

 

Leaving too much things to imagination can be very disappointing. The woman of interest may be less interesting than the product of our imagination when she totally reveals herself.

 

Furthermore, almost total hiding of the body, like using muslim burkas, is not very enticing. Is it ?

[someguy]

First of all, not all animal species have alpha males. Usually only social animals have them and not always or, at least, sometimes they have a “moderate” alpha male.

 

Bonobos, for instance, have a matriarchal system so probably they do not have an alpha-male.

 

Secondly, in the cases where they have a strong alpha male, he may get all the females but he cannot avoid some of them cheating with other males.

 

Just few dozens of millennia ago, when human lived in small groups, they used to live in a common habitation like a big cave. It is unlikely that they would have any kind of privacy in these circumstances.

 

We still fight and compete for females. Monogamy did not eliminate competition.

 

A rapist would not have much difficulty with woman using a skirt or a gown. Some people say that cloths make women less tempting. Currently, however, clothes are so sexy that they actually increase sexual desire.

 

I know what you mean but humans came from monkeys where there are alpha males and even if we all lived in a cave together i could still sneak a girl out or while the alpha male is out hunting find myself a safe bush. I realize there is still competition for mates but it is different now. we have more knowledge and are not such simple animals as we used to be. A skirt would not prevent a rapist from raping a female but it could prevent the desire to rape her animals will only have sex if they feel the emotion of wanting it. a naked female would provoke that or another male having sex right in plain site would provoke another male and he would then want to take the female away from the other guy and it would start a fight. so if you're not gonna be the guy winning the fight you might wanna find some privacy. we compete for females but its rare that we could fist fight for one as a prize, still fairly common i guess as a showoff kind of thing. In the animal kingdom raping is normal behavior women don't really have a choice, unless there are no stronger males around to catch you.

 

you're right burkas must have been a defense against this, in Africa women had their clitoris removed I guess for the same reason. maybe that's why black men have such a reputation for having horse like qualities. And they even invented the chastity belt not so much against getting raped but cheating on your spouse which may have been forced upon you against your will like the way an alpha male would just take you.

 

 

Do you know during which period humans started wearing clothes in comparison to how their society was structured? maybe it depends where, but if language and structured and enforced law arrived before clothes then clothes doesn't really fit into to what i was saying. So i am guessing or sort of assuming i guess that humans wore clothes while still quite animal like.