Help! I've Taken the 'Date Rape' Drug!

[Mr Skeptic]

Sex is restricted in the rest of the animal kingdom, but only insofar as females are not always in heat. Since this is not the case with humans, from the perspective of nature there would be no reason to restrict mating.

 

It is not just that. Mating opportunity is a resource (a very valuable resource at that) and access is restricted by various of the animals:

1) the female restricts mating to the best males she can find

2) males compete with other males for access to the females

2a) either trying to impress the female

2b) or to form a harem. In the case of the harem, he will try to prevent other males from mating with "his" females, and also to prevent the females from mating with others. Such "illicit" mating still happens, but in secret.

[lemur]

It is not just that. Mating opportunity is a resource (a very valuable resource at that) and access is restricted by various of the animals:

1) the female restricts mating to the best males she can find

2) males compete with other males for access to the females

2a) either trying to impress the female

2b) or to form a harem. In the case of the harem, he will try to prevent other males from mating with "his" females, and also to prevent the females from mating with others. Such "illicit" mating still happens, but in secret.

 

There are different views on this. I read an article that claimed evolutionary selection is best served by a female being inseminated by as many males as possible during ovulation and experiencing orgasm only after a number of different semens are present to be thoroughly mixed by the muscle contractions. That way, the various spermatozoa have an equal chance of swimming to the egg first and getting through regardless of the order in which they were inseminated. Maybe multiple processes of mate selection occur, e.g. competition between males and illicit mating (as you mention) and maybe there are also situations in which males don't compete but just wait their turn to inseminate and leave the competition to their spermatozoa.

[JohnB]

There are different views on this. I read an article that claimed evolutionary selection is best served by a female being inseminated by as many males as possible during ovulation and experiencing orgasm only after a number of different semens are present to be thoroughly mixed by the muscle contractions. That way, the various spermatozoa have an equal chance of swimming to the egg first and getting through regardless of the order in which they were inseminated. Maybe multiple processes of mate selection occur, e.g. competition between males and illicit mating (as you mention) and maybe there are also situations in which males don't compete but just wait their turn to inseminate and leave the competition to their spermatozoa.

 

An article can claim all they want, but the required behaviour is not observed in the animal kingdom. Therefore the idea is probably garbage.

[lemur]

An article can claim all they want, but the required behaviour is not observed in the animal kingdom. Therefore the idea is probably garbage.

 

The article was in reference to humans.

[random]

If sexuality were not somehow repressed we would have an HIV and other std epidemic of massive proportions. People have learned to be more careful out of neccessity in selecting sexual partners. However I agree it should not be so taboo or require so much work to get lucky. All women please become easy, we will not call you foul names that label such behaviour as shameful.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, in some animals competition occurs before sex, in others afterward, or both. In some species the male attempts to remove any sperm from the female before mating, and sperm compete with each other to reach the egg, some species have "kamikaze" sperm that are for disabling others' sperm, etc. But I just meant to point out that animals other than humans also restrict sex. So it can't be a strictly religious issue (unless animals are religious too).

[lemur]

If sexuality were not somehow repressed we would have an HIV and other std epidemic of massive proportions. People have learned to be more careful out of neccessity in selecting sexual partners. However I agree it should not be so taboo or require so much work to get lucky. All women please become easy, we will not call you foul names that label such behaviour as shameful.

 

If people, women and men, would become generally "easy," it would create social problems because some people would be getting a lot more sex because of attractive looks or personality traits and others would be getting systematically avoided because of off-putting ones. Thus the gap between sexually rich and poor would grow and people who weren't getting any (or as much) would feel that much poorer as a result, just as high levels of material consumption in an economy make people with little purchasing power feel relatively poorer.

Edited September 30, 2010 by lemur

[Marat]

The notion that society restricts sex out of concern for the objective risks that sexual intercourse carries is easily disproved by the fact that there was still extreme sexual repression during the era when all known std's were controllable and unwanted pregnancies were quite simply avoided. This period lasted from about 1960 to 1980, when the birth control pill reduced the risk of unwanted pregnancies almost to zero and all the known serious std's, such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and yaws, could easily be taken care of with the available antibiotics.

 

Even now, with most people using condoms for sex, and with the Aids risk having been demonstrated to be quite small among heterosexuals, do the objective risks of sex really justify all the restrictions imposed on it?

 

While it is obvious that a form of selection of the fittest goes on in nature when the queen bee, for example, flies as high as she can during mating in order to ensure that only the strongest males can mate with her, females' restriction of mating opportunities to the 'best' males is now largely pointless, since probably 99.9% of all sex occurs purely for pleasure with all possibilities of reproduction excluded, so there is no need to keep the unhealthy, unsuccessful, or unattractive males at bay. However, making sex into a rare commodity rather than treating it as an abundant natural resource does increase the social power of women greatly, since they can then be important just for how they look or what biological cooperation they can provide, rather than actually having to do the hard work of being truly interesting to gain social status.

[HerpetologyFangirl]

Wow... reading these forums is like watching an episode of Big Bang Theory. I feel like I should grab a bowl of popcorn or something. You guys take passive-aggressive to a whole new level. That being said, if sex was totally unrestricted like having conversations, humans would probably be extinct by now from Aids. Remember, it was only discovered a few decades after it started killing people, and by then thousands of people had it. If it weren't for sexual restrictions, probably millions of people would've had it by the time it was discovered. It might have been discovered too late, and everybody would already be doomed. I'm thankful for the restrictions. Besides, I might only be 20, but I'm an old-fashioned romanticist. I like the idea of sex being special. So sue me.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Wow... reading these forums is like watching an episode of Big Bang Theory. I feel like I should grab a bowl of popcorn or something. You guys take passive-aggressive to a whole new level.

How so?

[HerpetologyFangirl]

How so?

 

It's like listening to Sheldon, Leonard, Raj, and Howard debating some Physics principle. You hear alot of scientific terms, some of which you don't recognise in the least, and they make you laugh until your head falls off every five minutes, yet you get the guist of the argument, and are able to form your own opinion on it. Well, that's my view on it anyway.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Sure, but I was curious what's so passive-aggressive about it.

[HerpetologyFangirl]

Sure, but I was curious what's so passive-aggressive about it.

 

Hmmm... I'm not really sure. There's just that atmosphere to it. Like maybe there's an underlying tention of everybody tyring to convince everyone else that their theory is the right one... perhaps passive-aggressive wasn't quite the right adjective though.