How and Why Taboos Are Enforced And Reinforced ?

[blue_cristal]

I have observed in a lot of different forums that as soon someone starts discussing and questioning sexual taboos, there is always someone else who immediately assumes the worst about this person and start denigrating and stigmatizing him with malevolent insinuations. The usual stereotyped assumption is that if he discusses this or that taboo is because he is a “pervert” and that he actually questions a taboo because “he has an interest” in such sexual practice.

 

Some individuals even go as far as insinuating that the poster gets aroused just for discussing the matter !!!

 

But making this inference is as true as saying that a psychologist who studies sexual behaviour "gets aroused” by studying this matter and therefore he is a “pervert”.

 

Obviously, actually almost nobody accuses or insinuates that a psychologist is a “perverted person”. Strangely enough, people think that someone having a psychologist’s diploma makes him immune of any such accusation. Yet both a psychologist and a non-graduated person can have a genuine interest and curiosity about this matter without necessarily being a sexual deviant or “pervert”.

 

By the way, the word “pervert” although it is, currently, enormously charged with denigrating meanings, actually is very subjective, vague and arbitrary. For instance, there are some few people that consider an ordinary kiss between lovers as a “perversion”.

 

So my question is why some people are so keen on planting malicious accusations and, as consequence, try to abort any free debate about sexual matters ?

 

What are they trying to achieve and why ?

[ParanoiA]

So my question is why some people are so keen on planting malicious accusations and, as consequence, try to abort any free debate about sexual matters ?

 

I don't know, but my uneducated guess would be discomfort of the subject matter due to insecurity issues, lack of ability to perform to an expectation, religion and other unhealthy dogmatic belief systems that hinder the advancement and progressive nature of human development.

 

Not all religion, obviously, but many of the prominent ones, particularly in the US, have a disfunctional relationship with human sexuality. I don't know if it comes from the anti-pagan culture of the church or what, but I blame religion the most for the sexual discomfort in the US. Not an expert, but that's my take on it.

[blue_cristal]

Each taboo proclaims “it is utterly wrong and don’t even question it otherwise you will be punished just for questioning or even thinking about it”.

 

But should rational people accept dogmatically and blindly that something is “wrong” or “right” without analysing it objectively and logically ?

[jackson33]

Seems, like once or twice a week I do respond to some question, where a person seems to question his/her activity. The reason, I suppose I do respond is the notion that sex itself is NOT a bad thing. Most all of us have mind driven fetishes which we never practice in real life.

 

Blue; In short, I don't see the reactions, apparently you have...

[blue_cristal]

Seems, like once or twice a week I do respond to some question, where a person seems to question his/her activity. The reason, I suppose I do respond is the notion that sex itself is NOT a bad thing. Most all of us have mind driven fetishes which we never practice in real life.

 

To start with, is there an objective and verifiable causal explanation for fetiche ?

 

Blue; In short, I don't see the reactions, apparently you have...

 

May be you never questioned and deeply inquired taboos in first place.

[blue_cristal]

Predictably, people seem scared to debate about taboos.

 

And we arrogantly say that we live in a “free-speech” society. How ironic !

[insane_alien]

or it could just be that we don't really care about it as much as you seem to.

[blue_cristal]

or it could just be that we don't really care about it as much as you seem to.

 

I witness almost a daily dogmatic propaganda in TV, newspapers and all sort of media protecting societies’ taboos and you are telling me that people “don’t really care much” ?

 

How convincing do you think your argument is ?

 

Do people really don't care or, in reality, are they afraid to touch the subject ?

[insane_alien]

i meant people here.

[blue_cristal]

i meant people here.

 

I would be convinced by your argument if people here were treating these subjects substantially different from the masses.

 

So far, I did not notice significant differences.

[ParanoiA]

Actually, insane_alien speaks for me too. I'm just not concerned with it. I violate taboos regularly and look down on society for being twits about it. Doesn't really bother me...

[lucaspa]

Each taboo proclaims “it is utterly wrong and don’t even question it otherwise you will be punished just for questioning or even thinking about it”.

 

But should rational people accept dogmatically and blindly that something is “wrong” or “right” without analysing it objectively and logically ?

 

1. Can you give a specific example where the actions in the OP have happened to you?

 

2. Yes, most subjects should be open to discussion. But not all. Have you ever considered that the subject has been analyzed objectively and logically, the conclusion reached, and it has been concluded that further questioning is simply ignorance? Let's take this out of sexuality and look at some other areas of human knowledge.

 

Science: once theories are proven to be wrong we don't feel the need to discuss them anymore. It's a waste of time. That the earth is not flat would fit what you call a "taboo". Anyone today suggesting that we must(re)analyze whether the earth is flat or not would get pretty short shrift.

 

History: Consider what happens to Holocaust deniers. They think that we have to "analyze" whether the Holocaust took place. Do we really need to go into all the data and logic to justify that the Holocaust happened?

 

Another thread where you raised "conformism" was in Pedophile Nationalism. Pedophilia has been analyzed objectively and logically and the clear conclusion is that pedophilia is morally wrong for a number of independent reasons. Do we need to keep discussing why that is so, or is someone who questions it obligated to do the research into how and why the conclusion was reached? Just because you disagree with a conclusion does not mean that the subject has not been settled. For years there was a Flat Earth Society because one man continued to insist the earth was flat. Do the rest of us owe him our valuable time to discuss such a ridiculous position when the information settling the issue is readily available?

[blue_cristal]

1. Can you give a specific example where the actions in the OP have happened to you?

 

Example: Homosexuality. It is still taboo to a lot of people. Just observe what the majority of current muslims and christians (fundamentalists) say about it.

 

2. Yes, most subjects should be open to discussion. But not all. Have you ever considered that the subject has been analyzed objectively and logically, the conclusion reached, and it has been concluded that further questioning is simply ignorance?

 

1) Actually, only very few people, in society, have analyzed taboos objectively and logically ( scientifically).

 

2) Further questioning is never ignorance because no conclusion is ever complete and definitive in science. On the contrary, the passive acceptance of something as “definitive truth” is a dogmatic and anti-scientific attitude. Dogmas are what paralyze science and creates/boost religion.

 

Here is a “sample” of what pernicious dogmatic thinking does. Steven Pinker, in his book “The Blank Slate” ( regarding Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, Judith Rich Harris, Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer ) say this: “For invoking nurture and nature, not nurture alone, these authors have been picketed, shouted down, subjected to searing invective in the press, even denounced in Congress. Others expressing such opinions have been censored, assaulted, or threatened with criminal prosecution.”

 

Let's take this out of sexuality and look at some other areas of human knowledge.

 

Science: once theories are proven to be wrong we don't feel the need to discuss them anymore. It's a waste of time. That the earth is not flat would fit what you call a "taboo". Anyone today suggesting that we must(re)analyze whether the earth is flat or not would get pretty short shrift.

 

You are not formulating this example correctly. What amounts “taboo” was the prohibition to challenge the notion that the “earth is flat”.

And yes, this notion was demolished. A more accurate notion reached by science was that the earth has a geoids form (approx. the shape of a regular oblate spheroid ). But if science assumed, as you suggest to do, that the question of earth's form was “definitively clarified” then science could not refine even further this knowledge to reach a new more accurate conclusion: “ the earth's form is not a perfect geoid because it has uneven distribution of patches of higher density of mass."

 

You see, in science, there is not such a thing as saying “we don't feel the need to discuss them anymore”. No issue is ever totally clarified and no theory is definitive in science.

 

Another thread where you raised "conformism" was in Pedophile Nationalism. Pedophilia has been analyzed objectively and logically and the clear conclusion is that pedophilia is morally wrong for a number of independent reasons.

 

Firstly, there is not doubt that paedophilia is harmful to children and society should protect children.

 

But I do not consider it a “finished matter”. Because in order to access how paedophiles should be correctly punished or treated, science should address a lot of pendent questions:

 

1) Why there are so many paedophiles in human population ? What is the evolutionary/cultural explanation for this phenomenon ?

 

2) Since probably there is a huge range of possible paedophilic behaviours that goes from simple titillating conversation in one end to the extremes of rape in the other end, do law apply a proportional punishment to each case ?

 

3) Should paedophiles be punished ( if so how severe should be the punishment ), treated or just isolated from society ? And what is the objective justification for each position.

 

4) Does the law make a differentiation between pre-pubescent and pos-pubescent paedophiles ( certainly the first type can be far more harmful that the second one ) ?

 

You told me that objective and analytical studies ( I suppose you are referring to scientific studies ) about this matter were made. Could you provide reliable references please ?

[Sisyphus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

 

Check out the number of footnotes! And that's just a short, mostly amateur-written article. I don't see how you can possibly believe these things aren't objects of study. Just because some idiot Congressmen make uninformed blanket statements doesn't mean said idiots speak for everyone, and it certainly doesn't mean the science stops.

 

As for your "refutation" of lucaspa's flat Earth example, his point was not that "everything is known" about a particular subject but that some things are known. For example, it is known that the Earth is not flat. ...Agreed?

[blue_cristal]

As for your "refutation" of lucaspa's flat Earth example, his point was not that "everything is known" about a particular subject but that some things are known. For example, it is known that the Earth is not flat. ...Agreed?

 

Not really. Saying what something is not it is not enough. Science tries to find also positive answers. And even when it finds them, it is never a final knowledge about this matter. Science is a dynamic, progressive and never ending process of acquiring, correcting or even totally replacing knowledge.

[Sisyphus]

You sure do know a lot about science!

[Sayonara]

Not really. Saying what something is not it is not enough.

I think you might have misunderstood...

 

We know it is not flat because we know it is a spheroid.

 

Minor point I know.

[Severian]

It's not a spheroid. It's a geoid.

 

Minor point I know.

[lucaspa]

Example: Homosexuality. It is still taboo to a lot of people. Just observe what the majority of current muslims and christians (fundamentalists) say about it.

 

You seem to be confusing "acceptance" of a behavior and discussion. You are saying that homosexuality can't be discussed. But that is patently untrue: this society has a lively discussion about homosexuality: its causes, its morality, etc. That some people consider the behavior immoral and should not be done is not a "taboo". It's their opinion. We don't have to agree with it.

 

1) Actually, only very few people, in society, have analyzed taboos objectively and logically ( scientifically).

 

2) Further questioning is never ignorance because no conclusion is ever complete and definitive in science.

 

This isn't true. Because of deductive logic, falsified theories are complete and definitive in science. As I say, can you tell me with a straight face that it is not definitive that the earth is a shape other than flat?

 

Currently accepted theories are open to further testing and discussion, because you cannot, by deductive logic, "prove" a positive statement.

 

You need to make a distinction between falsified theories and supported theories. They have different standings regarding "definitive".

 

Saying what something is not it is not enough. Science tries to find also positive answers. And even when it finds them, it is never a final knowledge about this matter. Science is a dynamic, progressive and never ending process of acquiring, correcting or even totally replacing knowledge.

 

1. Did you notice that "totally replacing knowledge"? That's definitive, isn't it?

 

2. Yes, showing a hypothesis to be false IS enough. It tells us what is wrong. Yes, we look for the correct hypotheses, but we do so by the process of falsifying all the alternative hypotheses we can think of. One reason the supported hypotheses are not definitive is that there may always be an alternative out there we haven't thought of.

 

Here is a “sample” of what pernicious dogmatic thinking does. Steven Pinker, in his book “The Blank Slate” ( regarding Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, Judith Rich Harris, Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer ) say this: “For invoking nurture and nature, not nurture alone, these authors have been picketed, shouted down, subjected to searing invective in the press, even denounced in Congress. Others expressing such opinions have been censored, assaulted, or threatened with criminal prosecution.”

 

And that is because they are questioning a supported theory-- nuture alone -- not a falsified one. In fact, they are saying that "nurture ALONE" is a falsified theory.

 

You are not formulating this example correctly. What amounts “taboo” was the prohibition to challenge the notion that the “earth is flat”.

 

Not NOW. Now the idea that the earth is flat is effectively taboo. You admit that when you say "the earth has a geoids form (approx. the shape of a regular oblate spheroid )."

 

But if science assumed, as you suggest to do, that the question of earth's form was “definitively clarified” then science could not refine even further this knowledge to reach a new more accurate conclusion: “ the earth's form is not a perfect geoid because it has uneven distribution of patches of higher density of mass."

 

Sorry, I never used the phrase "earth's form was 'definitively clarified'". Instead I said that the idea that the earth is flat is taboo today. Because flat earth is definitively falsified.

 

You see, in science, there is not such a thing as saying “we don't feel the need to discuss them anymore”.

 

My apologies. I apparently misspoke. I said "That the earth is not flat would fit what you call a "taboo". Anyone today suggesting that we must(re)analyze whether the earth is flat or not would get pretty short shrift. "

 

What I meant to say was "That the earth is flat would fit what you call a taboo. Anyone today suggesting that we must (re)analyze whether the earth is flat or not would get pretty short shrift." Do you disagree? Do you think anyone can legitimately raise the issue "the earth is flat" as valid?

 

Firstly, there is not doubt that paedophilia is harmful to children and society should protect children.

 

But I do not consider it a “finished matter”. Because in order to access how paedophiles should be correctly punished or treated,

 

Those are separate issues!

1. Is pedophilia morally wrong? You say "there is not doubt". Where is the "it is never a final knowledge about this matter"? You say there IS "final knowledge" because "there is not doubt"!

 

Thank you for refuting your own position. Even you think some ideas are tabool In this case it is the idea that pedophilia is beneficial to children.

 

2. How we deal with pedophiles to protect society. That is not settled. And we were discussing the possibilities.

 

You raise some further issues:

 

1. What are the causes of pedophilia? Is it evolutionary or chemical?

 

2. How should the law apply a proportional punishment to each case ?

 

You told me that objective and analytical studies ( I suppose you are referring to scientific studies ) about this matter were made. Could you provide reliable references please ?

 

No, I said there were studies showing sexual orientation -- heterosexuality and homosexuality -- was genetic. Again, apples and oranges. Has nothing to do with pedophilia Do you want those?

 

You can find studies on the issues you raised at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez doing a search with the keyword "pedophilia". Some of the most recent articles are:

 

1: Dyer O.

Drug treatment is proposed to manage child sex offenders.

BMJ. 2007 Jun 30;334(7608):1343. No abstract available.

PMID: 17600001 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

2: Schiltz K, Witzel J, Northoff G, Zierhut K, Gubka U, Fellmann H, Kaufmann J,

Tempelmann C, Wiebking C, Bogerts B.

Brain pathology in pedophilic offenders: evidence of volume reduction in the

right amygdala and related diencephalic structures.

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007 Jun;64(6):737-46.

PMID: 17548755 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

3: Hall RC, Hall RC.

A profile of pedophilia: definition, characteristics of offenders, recidivism,

treatment outcomes, and forensic issues.

Mayo Clin Proc. 2007 Apr;82(4):457-71. Erratum in: Mayo Clin Proc. 2007

May;82(5):639.

PMID: 17418075 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

4: Walter M, Witzel J, Wiebking C, Gubka U, Rotte M, Schiltz K, Bermpohl F,

Tempelmann C, Bogerts B, Heinze HJ, Northoff G.

Pedophilia Is Linked to Reduced Activation in Hypothalamus and Lateral Prefrontal

Cortex During Visual Erotic Stimulation.

Biol Psychiatry. 2007 Apr 2; [Epub ahead of print]

PMID: 17400196 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

 

5: Levenson JS, Morin JW.

Factors predicting selection of sexually violent predators for civil commitment.

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2006 Dec;50(6):609-29.

PMID: 17068188 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

6: Schiffer B, Peschel T, Paul T, Gizewski E, Forsting M, Leygraf N, Schedlowski

M, Krueger TH.

Structural brain abnormalities in the frontostriatal system and cerebellum in

pedophilia.

J Psychiatr Res. 2007 Nov;41(9):753-62. Epub 2006 Jul 31.

 

I think you might have misunderstood...

 

We know it is not flat because we know it is a spheroid.

 

Not quite. We know the earth is not flat because we have consequences that can't be there if the earth is flat:

 

1. Ships disappear over the horizon hull first followed by masts.

2. The sun shines directly down a well at one point on earth at noon but casts a shadow an another latitude but same longitude.

3. The earth casts a curved shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses.

 

Thus, whatever shape the earth is, it's NOT flat. As it turns out, these consequences are all consistent with the theory that the earth is round.

 

Theories survive or fall on their own. Otherwise you fall into the creationist trap of "dichotomy", taking evidence against one theory as automatic support for another.