Seeing as my last thread lightly touched on this and there is large scope for analyse I thought I'd express my ideas; This thread will only really deal with modern western culture.

Religious 'Morality'
Religion is frequently cited as the origin of the sex taboo however although Christianity institutionalised the sex taboo but it did not create it; there are biological and social origins of sex taboo which have nothing to do with Christianity. Religion, along with ideas of 'morality', are manifestations and not origins of the natural stigmatisation of sex.

Biological factors
Now this primarily focuses on female biology. Its often repeated in the community that women must commit alot more than a man when having sex. They are the ones that are pregnant, they are the ones that will give birth, and they are the ones who will have to nurture the child and so naturally sex and choosing the right partner is a big deal to women. Men however have less commitment, we dont have one egg per month, but millions of sperm being made daily. We can blast out our load and be on our way. This partially explains biologically why sexually active women are branded 'sluts' and their male counterparts complimented as 'players'. It's the mans job to inpregnate women, its the womans job to choose the best mate - female promiscuity is evolutionarily a negative trait and thus this leads to repression and stigma socially.

Humans however are no longer the hairy primatives we were biologically designed to be; people have characteristics from evolution that are misplaced in modern society. This is not to say we should go back to clubbing women as a means of seduction, but this is to say there are outdated elements in the human mind. With the invention of contraception sex has changed; sex used to always carry a strong possibility of conception and this of course made it something not be taken lightly but now it can be relatively risk free. The biological inhibitions of sex no longer apply the same degree which has lead us to question the social stigma of sex.

Cultural factors
Now although sex no longer carries the same risk of pregnancy it still carries the risk of disease amongst other nasties. Throughout human history it makes sense that casual sex was frowned upon because the people that did it would often catch diseases and/or live in (greater) poverty because of the large amount of children. Casual sex in olden times was irresponcible and the ideals of the enlightenment enforced this; the desire to have sex is an animal urge, not a product of the thinking mind.

Skip to now, these ideas that have been installed in society for thousands of year are still present. But there are still reasons for their existance. Sex still carries risks; pregnancy and disease are largely avoidable but still there and there are added risks, especially for women, of violence and other forms of abuse. Naturally the controlling element of society wants to avoid unneccessary disease or abuse and so the taboo is reinforced through media etc. Sex is fun but it makes sense that many people have inhibitions to it despite the 'sexual enlightenment' gradually removing the stigma. So, what is the solution?

The Solution
We continue our responcibility as sexually enlightened beings. All that needs to be remembered is that much of the stigma attached to sex is preinstalled from many different sources yet it is largely a false inhibition provided its done responcibly. Now of course women we meet are unlikely to have our liberal attitude and we must empathise but do so knowing there is absolutely nothing morally or physically wrong about wanting to experience a very natural and healthy form of enjoyment with another human being. There is nothing embarassing or immoral about the act of sex provided it is done for the right reasons and in a mature way.


PS: To the NHS, make my cheque payable to...

Thanks Flake,
Firstly for not jumping on the bandwagon: let's bash the fucking church they're up to no good anyway (Dawkins, you spiteful bastard: all your reductionism only reduces to 'I've got an issue with the church'. Blind who doesn't see it. End'o'rant.).

I've been thinking about why these notions still persist, despite quite an effective contraception having been invented. Are there any valid reasons why promiscuous behaviour should still be stigmatised? And more so in case of females than men?
I don't know. I've many more questions than answers to them. But I've noticed that the civilisation that is going to overrun ours (ours = Western, Christianitas, European, the other one: Muslim/Arabic) is very very strict about promiscuity and at the same time is strongly opposed to contraception.
Again: I don't know, but I've got a feeling close to certainty that in at most 10 generations all the puny remnants of the once great civilisation of the white man will subdue to those who at the moment are perceived as lower and cruder. I don't think they are going to need to shoot even once. We will shoot and despite that we're bound to perish, imho.
I'm not even trying to formulate any hypothesis here, just want you lot to gather from these facts: west - depopulating, not willing to have children; east (middle, mainly muslim) - highly reproductive. And we're rubbing against each other. Anybody disagrees we're going to get swallowed by them?

peace&fluff
7aco

Good post Flake, its got a lot in there I want to take in and think about. A very fair and academic post.

Well said, Im sick of people blaming religion for everything bad under the sun. Grow up!!

An interesting post, as a Muslim I could talk about this all day.

(And yes Kowalski will no doubt point out that I am a bad Muslim, but nobody is perfect..)

I've travelled a lot in Europe and the middle east and I have to say I agree with Nietzsche when he said in The Antichrist, part 60;

Long story short - there is a lot of good in religion, it can teach us about the wealth in the human soul and about inner peace. Take it from where you will, its your choice.

The future is not that simple my good man, despite the extremists on both sides wishing us to believe this is the case. Consider the economic and political influence India and China will have, this will be far more significant than increases in Muslim populations in Europe.

The strongest will always prevails.

Apologies to Flake for hijacking your thread.

I'm now tempted to collectivise my thoughts on this too but I'll just make my argument simple :P

I don't think this will happen for a few reasons. I'm not going to argue a balance of power with other cultures is a bad thing but the rapidly growing populations of Africa, India and China will begin to decrease as they get wealthier because birthrates generally corrospond with wealth historically.This however poses problems because the West does not want these countries to get wealthy, nor does it want them to use up more resources with large populations. This can end in a few ways; reproduction rates severely drop due to contraception, education or poor nutrition; starvation reduces population; there is a large-scale conflict.

Again its unfair to blame religion for these high birth-rates; the importance of religion tends to drop with an increase in education and wealth. Contraception simply isnt available to many of these people nor are people educated about it. Now I'm not some apologist for religion, I am highly anti-religious really but I have respect for other's beliefs and my resentment is more towards the institutions than the beliefs.

Its also important to remember that there are a lot more old people; eventually the population growth due to aging though will be offset as people reach their maximum lifespan, you must remember the huge medical advances in the last 100 years have greatly increased, to varying degrees, every county's percentage of elderly people and thus the amount of people in total.

Not to say that this doesnt pose massive economic problems and while the west is in the driving seat you can count on their being some severe humanitarian crises as we struggle to maintain our position and lifestyles. However, I do think that technological advances will save us to a large degree (like for example food will be grown in towers and energy sources will gradually become renewable[which is effectively infinite]). Anyway, in the mean time I'm going to try and raise the birth rates in Britain (Actually I won't cos I don't want children...)

Good Post.

My belief is that the taboo of sex will become less and less, this is already evident in the differences of generations. Sex is alot less a 'big of a deal' now then it was 10 or 20 years ago. I beleive this is due to social pressures, for example, what films do generally most people enjoy....films that have some sort of a sex scene. 10 or 20 years ago there were sex scene but on a lot less promiscuity level than we see today. Also whilst growing up there is a big emphasis placed on sex, it was the 'in thing' in my high school and if you hadnt had sex you were seen to be abit of a loser. Women are a hell of alot more open about sex than they used to be and the information that is avalible is amazing, you cant pick up a magazine without some sort sex tip or story in it. Times are changing and so will the mentality we have.

For example: Some of my mates have the belief that if a girl has slept with 10 or more guys she is a slut. I always stick up for the girl, liking sex is not something to be condoned, it is a good thing and going back to when we were cave men, surely it emphasises the point of fertility, that other guys find her attractive and she is sexually active. Nothing wrong with that IMO. I would be surprised that by the time most women are 30 (if they have'nt married) they will have easily surpassed 20 + guys)

There is always going to be individuals that believe in no sex before marriage etc and tbh I commend them! But its not for everyone.

Allow me to wade into this

I think the major shift happened with the invention of the pill, no worries about having a baby anymore. Even with the event of aids you couldn't go back to older morals after that and there's condoms which help solve the problem with aids.

I don't agree with him he has a very selective view of history, Islam from the start was an expansionist empire take for example the battle of Talas and the Islamic expansion along the silk road

Battle of Talas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

following this they forcefully supressed the Sogdians who were basically religiously tolerant traders

Sogdiana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and put an end to the silk road which was a largely peaceful melting pot of many cultures trading and spreading knowledge.

Also Christianity wasn't always this all powerful force you might think it was. Take the Mediterranean in the 1500's where Suleiman the Magnificent started a 60 year struggle for control of it, stopped by failure of the siege of malta

Siege of Malta (1565) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and the battle of Lepanto

Battle of Lepanto (1571) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Islam could have conquered europe if it wasn't for this Suleiman got as far as besieging Vienna.

I don't really see what much of your Nietzsche quote had to do with this post I just thought I should clear up a few things about history. Yes Christians suppressed cultures but Islam and others are equally guilty of this.

It can also teach you the opposite of this. Religion can go against reasonable, factual, logical arguments.

I was listening to little atoms (which is my new favourite thing) and someone on that i'm not sure who said not in these words but to this effect that religion is like an amplifer and if you a cunt it'll probably turn you into a bigger cunt or at least give you the power to extend your cuntishness but if your good it'll do the opposite.

This I agree with but I can't say increases in Muslim populations in Europe won't be more or less significant after all the future much like history is not that simple.

Agreed tom. I'd argue that religion isnt the root of evil but the justification. The powerful can't get what they want on their own so they must get people on their side with something greater. Conquest is a part of almost all cultures and religions.

"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfuly as when they do it for religious convictions"
- Blaise Pascal

The quote was to question the idea of the great white race and Europe/America as being the only nation who ever achieved anything worthy.

Every empire has been an expansionist one for political and economic reasons, this I was not questioning.

And they were also responsible for transmitting the knowledge of the Greeks that they had embraced and assimilated which they translated into Arabic and spread from Moorish Spain to Europe which ultimately fuelled the renaissance in Europe.

Just thought I'd wade in and clear up a few things about history.

I completely agree with this statement, but does this mean that we shouldnt do charity..?

We should not judge a belief by its followers as they are human.

Thats a curious thought;

I am at this stage in thinking where now I find it hard to blame anyone for any serious crimes as generally there are factors largely outside the criminals control which influence them. Like serial killers generally have severe mental problems so in a way they are victims. Less extreme are thieves or bullies, generally its their upbringing that makes them that way. There are also biological problems like if there was a rapist who was raised well it is likely they have an underlying mental condition or have hormonal imbalances. This is totally off topic but its a pretty philoshopical debate