The morals of sexuality

[Xev]

Well, when it comes down to it sex is first of all a biological function and need, then we can attach the feeling of our choice to it, may it be love or may it be power. I prefer love.

Interesting, Bebelina. It comes close to my own view about sex and sexuality - that everybody has a basic libido, an urge to fuck, but that as humans we try to attatch a meaning to it (I state badly).

Are love and power impossible to express at the same time? I would think so, but I'm interested in why you assume so? :m:

*Edit*

Have been corrected on the expression of love and power. They are not incompatible.

 

[James R]

Interestingly, evolutionary psychology suggests that romantic love is rather intimately tied to genetic imperatives. If this is true then we cannot actually separate sex from romantic love. This seems to be born out by the high incidence of behaviours such as sexual jealousy and de facto monogamy.

Power as it relates to sex is perhaps currently over-rated, mostly as a result of militant feminism.

 

[Bebelina]

Love and power can of course be combined, if you are interested in playing games while you're having sex.
But in some cases the need to express power while having sex has its roots in a persons insecurity, it becomes a cover up for the real feelings.

 

[Bebelina]

Although it has less to do with feminism, but much to do with schauvinism! How many feminists go out and rape people? Rape is the ultimate expression of power through sex.

 

[James R]

<i>Rape is the ultimate expression of power through sex.</i>

Militant feminists would have us believe that rape is <b>only</b> about power. In fact, the evidence suggests that it is often very much about sex, with power only being one motive.

 

[The Marquis]

Originally posted by James R

Interestingly, evolutionary psychology suggests that romantic love is rather intimately tied to genetic imperatives. If this is true then we cannot actually separate sex from romantic love.

What we need to do here is separate biological evolution from social evolution. Love is a response which probably did arise from biological evolution. It firstly pulls a couple together, and then afterward prevents one or the other from leaving during the formative years of a child, or more importantly (in animal terms), it keeps the male or female from leaving at a time the child is most vulnerable and needs protection. The so-called "7-year itch" corresponds more or less exactly with the time in which a child might be reasonably expected to have a survival chance without both parents being present. Modern society has ensured a child has that chance regardless of it's age, but biology doesn't pay too much attention to that, does it?

Social evolution is a different prospect. This is merely dogma which has resulted in humanity's responses to biological evolution, and unfortunately takes a lot longer to wear off. In terms of modern society, it is not true any longer (in any advanced civilisation) that a child needs both parents present to ensure survival. However, social conditioning which became prevalent during the times when it was required is taking some time to be seen for what it is.

We can separate sex from romantic love. The problem is that we have been thoroughly conditioned over the last few thousand years not to accept that.

This seems to be born out by the high incidence of behaviours such as sexual jealousy and de facto monogamy.

Actions resulting from conditioning cannot be seen as proof of anything at all, except that conditioning works rather well.

Power as it relates to sex is perhaps currently over-rated, mostly as a result of militant feminism.

The distribution of power is evident in any relationship you care to name. Show me a couple, give me an hour or two to observe, and I'll tell you who's "wearing the pants". In a very few cases it's not as obvious as it may seem, to the casual observer. But it exists. the degree to which it affects a relationship, however, might vary widely.

Power as it relates to sex is an integral part of any relationship. The fact that a large percentage of "humanity" can't see it doesn't make it any less true. It's not "over-rated" - it's unavoidable. A lack of perception on the part of most people doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sexual power, given the very intimacy of it's nature, will often determine which partner is the dominant one in the relationship outside the bedroom as well - even though it may not manifest itself as obviously.

I can't really go into the "as a result of militant feminism" bit within dissolving into giggles.....

 

[The Marquis]

Originally posted by Bebelina
Love and power can of course be combined, if you are interested in playing games while you're having sex.

Love and power are combined regardless of whether you're interested in them or not. Some recognise that, most don't. Some choose to confront it, analyse it... most don't.

But in some cases the need to express power while having sex has its roots in a persons insecurity, it becomes a cover up for the real feelings.

This, I agree with. Absolutely. In most cases, those concerned don't even recognise what they're really doing.

 

[Bebelina]

I don't agree that love and power must be connected Marquis, but perhaps you would like to explain why you think so and what you put in the word power.

 

[(Q)]

Bebelove

I don't agree that love and power must be connected

Perhaps an example is necessary.

Bebelina loves Q with every fiber of her existence. Therefore, Q will have complete control over Bebelina. Now thats power!

 

[Xev]

James R:

Militant feminists would have us believe that rape is only about power. In fact, the evidence suggests that it is often very much about sex, with power only being one motive.

First off, lay of the stereotyping. I am hardly a "militant feminist", yet I believe this.

Second, what evidence? I'm kinda curious, haven't heard much scientific (unbiased!) work in this area.

Power as it relates to sex is perhaps currently over-rated, mostly as a result of militant feminism.

I've always thought of sex in these terms, and I'm hardly a militant feminist. Again, please lay off the stereotyping.

But look at bonobos and chimps and prison inmates. Look at the way the language of sex and love mirrors the language of power. As Michel Foucault put it:

"Artemidorus sees the sexual act first and foremost as a game of superiority and inferiourity: penetration places the two partners in a relationship of dominence and submission. It is victory on one side, defeat on the other; it it is a right that is excersized for one of the partners, a necessity that is imposed on the other. It is a status that one asserts, or a condition to which one is subjected. It is an advantage from which one benefits, or an acceptance of a situation from which others are allowed to benefit."
--Michael Foucault, History of Sexuality vol.3

More later, I'm late already.

Bebelina loves Q with every fiber of her existence. Therefore, Q will have complete control over Bebelina. Now thats power!

And that *barf* is the sound of Xev barfing.

But yes, love and power are also connected. You love someone, they ipso facto (ipsie dixit? fuck, there goes my Latin) over you.

 

[Absurd]

Originally posted by Xev

First off, lay of the stereotyping. I am hardly a "militant feminist", yet I believe this.

Second, what evidence? I'm kinda curious, haven't heard much scientific (unbiased!) work in this area.

The gist of the evolutionary psychological approach to rape is that it could have been selected for because it allows unattractive or low status males to reproduce through forced mating. This is certainly a plausible adaptationist story about the possible evolutionary origin of rape (especially since forced mating is known to occur in nonhuman animals), but there is really not enough evidence to determine conclusively whether rape is actually an adaptation or not.

What's more, while the selection for rape would indeed have been "very much about sex" and not at all about power, it would be a manifest non sequitur to claim that rape as it actually occurs in human culture is about sex and not power. It is apparently taboo in many a conversation to try to link biological evolution to cultural "evolution", or vice versa, but failing to do so results in the bizarre attitude that if some aspect of human behavior has a biological property or explanation, it cannot therefore have another strictly cultural property or explanation. It is much more likely that human culture (which has clout over behavior, after all...) and human biology are intertwined, that biological wheels may be reinvented at the cultural level, and that evolutionary artifacts (such as rape) may be exapted by human culture to its own purposes.

For the same reason, there are biologists who, while familiar with forced mating in other species and with the evolutionary story about rape, will insist that it is not appropriate to call the forced mating behavior "rape", because rape refers to culturally contingent behavior laden with human discourse about sexuality. When male ducks mate with unwilling females, this is not rape, just as the behavior pattern that may or may not be a feature of human psychology selected for in the olden days was not really rape until it became infected with human sex and power memes.

 

[James R]

Xev:

<i>First off, lay of the stereotyping. I am hardly a "militant feminist", yet I believe this.</i>

I'm not stereotyping. What I meant by "militant feminists" is what are sometimes referred to as gender feminists. The other type are called equality feminists. Equality feminists advocate equal rights for men and women; few enlightened people disagree with equality feminism. Gender feminists take the "all men are evil oppressors" line.

Note also that I did not mention you personally in any way, Xev. I don't know anything about any feminist views you personally hold or do not hold.

<i>Second, what evidence? I'm kinda curious, haven't heard much scientific (unbiased!) work in this area.</i>

When rapists honestly tell why they rape, it is often for a combination of different reasons. One of those reasons is sex. Hence, it seems reasonable to conclude that rape is not only about power.

Michael Foucault, BTW, is a poster-boy of post-modernist feminism, and I'm not at all surprised by the extract you quoted from him.

 

[MacZ]

"Artemidorus sees the sexual act first and foremost as ... a relationship of dominence and submission. It is victory on one side, defeat on the other"

Well maybe he sees it that way. That doesn't mean that's how it is (obviously).

Why not simply one person giving and receiving pleasure and the other person giving and receiving pleasure. Same-same? Or wouldn't that be "interesting" enough for people who have to attach a theory to everything?

Similarly:

Bebelina loves Q with every fiber of her existence. Therefore, Q will have complete control over Bebelina. Now thats power!

Yes, but how about the fact that at the same time Q loves Bebelina with every fibre of his existence. Again, all balanced out, if you insist on this element of power.

But it's my own experience that the more dominant feeling in love is one of extreme security - you feel safer, in all senses, with that person than you do with anyone else. Power - and the "dangers" of being messed with - just doesn't come into it, at all.

 

[Tyler]

"Michael Foucault, BTW, is a poster-boy of post-modernist feminism, and I'm not at all surprised by the extract you quoted from him."

Just a point - but what you've just said in no way proves his statement (or even gives evidence that his statement) is false.


"When rapists honestly tell why they rape, it is often for a combination of different reasons. One of those reasons is sex. Hence, it seems reasonable to conclude that rape is not only about power."

Question; You say when rapists honestly tell why they rape?? For one, I never thought everyone understood themselves well enough to answer that question. I can hardly tell you why I get up in the morning yet a rapist is suppose to know exactly their own nature? Especially considering I'm willing to bet a healthy number of them don't have the background in psychoanalysis to have an educasted view into their nature?

 

[James R]

Tyler:

<i>Just a point - but what you've just said in no way proves his statement (or even gives evidence that his statement) is false.</i>

You're right, of course. Nor does quoting him in the first place prove his statement.

<i>Question; You say when rapists honestly tell why they rape??</i>

Yes, because a rapist might misrepresent his intentions or thoughts if he thinks he will benefit from doing so. I'm talking about cases where the rapists have nothing to gain by lying.

<i>For one, I never thought everyone understood themselves well enough to answer that question. I can hardly tell you why I get up in the morning yet a rapist is suppose to know exactly their own nature?</i>

No, they are not supposed to know their own nature. They are supposed to know how they felt and what they were thinking at the time. Reasonable, wouldn't you say?

 

[Tyler]

"You're right, of course. Nor does quoting him in the first place prove his statement."

Nope. Xev mearly posted it, I believe, to add to the discussion another educated person's view.


"Yes, because a rapist might misrepresent his intentions or thoughts if he thinks he will benefit from doing so"

No, not quite. I'm talking about the fact that nobody (for all intents and purposes) knows exaclty why they act the way they do. So I question of what use this person's answer is; besides to better understand how they view their actions consciously.

"No, they are not supposed to know their own nature. They are supposed to know how they felt and what they were thinking at the time. Reasonable, wouldn't you say?"

Ay. Unfortunatly, I fail to see how this truly provides much insight into "why rapists rape". It may help us understand how a rapist views his motives. It may indeed help us understand why a rapist thinks he rapes. Heck, it helps us greatly in telling how an underlying cause can be related to the conscious thought. However, how does it even come close to helping us understand underlying cause?

 

[Absurd]

Originally posted by James R

Equality feminists advocate equal rights for men and women; few enlightened people disagree with equality feminism. Gender feminists take the "all men are evil oppressors" line.

I can hardly imagine any serious feminists pushing the "all men are evil oppressors" line (though one hears stories, I guess). That feminists sometimes uncover what they take to be forms of male dominance which men do not regard as such does not mean that said feminists are out to create amazonia. But when you say that feminists who think that rape is only about power and not about sex [sic] are so-called "militant feminists", this is the fallacy that you seem to commit. I know (and know of) many feminists who think that rape is primarily about power, but they would find your "they think men are evil" accusation hilarious.

When rapists honestly tell why they rape, it is often for a combination of different reasons. One of those reasons is sex. Hence, it seems reasonable to conclude that rape is not only about power.

I frankly cannot make heads or tails of this. There are many banal reasons why rape cannot be "only about power". Obviously, not all men who like to place themselves in relationships where they hold power over women rape. Even more obviously, most instances of rape require that the man be aroused (well, that settles it - rape is about sex after all). If some rapist honestly tells you, "I fucked her because I was horny," this does not mean that the rape was "about sex". When people are aroused by watching or fantasizing about or, ultimately, committing rape, this could tell us something about their psychology - something that they may not want to admit, or something that they simply may not know.

When rapists report, however truthfully, what they feel or think when they rape, this does not constitute some kind of psychological self-examination on their part any more than truthful reports of paranoid feelings constitute an explanation of paranoid schizophrenia. Figuring out all the cognitive and environmental causes of that particular mental state at that particular time is something left for us to do.

Michael Foucault, BTW, is a poster-boy of post-modernist feminism, and I'm not at all surprised by the extract you quoted from him.

Lo, a new brand of feminism. So are postmodern feminists the common sense type or the amazonian type? :bugeye:

Postmodernism is a stupid label appropriated by hippie relativists to describe a century-plus old philosophical tradition. Most of the figures typically associated with the movement, like Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, and etc, want nothing to do with its excesses (nor, for that matter, do they want anything to do with the label). At any rate, I assure you that Foucault is no fan of amazonia, and calling someone a postmodernist just doesn't do as a criticism.

 

[The Marquis]

Originally posted by Absurd
The gist of the evolutionary psychological approach to rape is that it could have been selected for because it allows unattractive or low status males to reproduce through forced mating....
What's more, while the selection for rape would indeed have been "very much about sex" and not at all about power, ...

If you subscribe to this theory, doesn't this mean that a low-status male, not having the power in a social situation to get sex, then take it by force? in other words, power is an integral part of this situation, rather than it being "not at all about power". The desire for sex is only a prelude to a power issue.

Rape is a very simple thing. A female says, "I don't want to have sex with you". She is asserting her power of choice.
A male then says, "I don't care what you say, I'm going to have you anyway". Thereby demonstrating the power to take regardless of her choice. His reasons for doing so are probably many, and varied, but the end result is the same.. an expression of power over another.

 

[Xev]

James R:

Again, I do not unnecessarily stereotype you as a prudish geek by your discomfort with profanity and your knowledge of physics. I'd ask you not to stereotype me as a psychotic feminist for my beliefs about sex.

I'm not stereotyping. What I meant by "militant feminists" is what are sometimes referred to as gender feminists. The other type are called equality feminists. Equality feminists advocate equal rights for men and women; few enlightened people disagree with equality feminism. Gender feminists take the "all men are evil oppressors" line.

How nice for you. I was not referring to myself, more that you've labelled the defenders of one idea (rape primarily a power function) as a certain thing (militant feminist).

When rapists honestly tell why they rape, it is often for a combination of different reasons. One of those reasons is sex. Hence, it seems reasonable to conclude that rape is not only about power.

Do you care to cite a source?

I was not aware, also, that rapists (with a vested interest in looking good for parole boards) were so good at self analysis.

I also see sex in terms of power relations, and yet it took some years for me to realize this. If you had asked a 16 year old Xev what she thought of sex, she would have replied simply that sex was an agreeable activity, nothing more. And yet even then my particular tastes were fairly established.

Few people are good at true self analysis. If it took me (I do fancy myself rather decently read on psychology and philosophy) years of thinking of sexual relations as enactment of dominence and submission, to finally come to the realization, then I doubt that some inbred fool rapist is going to realize this.

I would, however, be quite ecstatic to realize that rape is merely the pursuit of sex at all costs.

Michael Foucault, BTW, is a poster-boy of post-modernist feminism, and I'm not at all surprised by the extract you quoted from him.

Actually, I think he's summarizing a Greek philosopher. But your ad hominem is duly noted and ignored.

Marquis:

But then, you would be looking it from the simple perspective, not from the googly-moogly "let's make this more complicated for better grants" perspective.

 

[James R]

<b>Tyler:</b>

<i>I'm talking about the fact that nobody (for all intents and purposes) knows exaclty why they act the way they do.</i>

I agree.

<i>So I question of what use this person's answer is; besides to better understand how they view their actions consciously.</i>

When you put the testimonies of many people together, you can begin to build up a picture.

<i>Unfortunatly, I fail to see how this truly provides much insight into "why rapists rape". It may help us understand how a rapist views his motives. It may indeed help us understand why a rapist thinks he rapes. Heck, it helps us greatly in telling how an underlying cause can be related to the conscious thought. However, how does it even come close to helping us understand underlying cause?</i>

Of course it helps. We can't examine an action like rape and hope to determine causes without considering why rapists think they do it, surely?


<b>Absurd:</b>

<i>I can hardly imagine any serious feminists pushing the "all men are evil oppressors" line (though one hears stories, I guess).</i>

You'd be surprised.

<i>That feminists sometimes uncover what they take to be forms of male dominance which men do not regard as such does not mean that said feminists are out to create amazonia.</i>

I agree.

<i>But when you say that feminists who think that rape is only about power and not about sex [sic] are so-called "militant feminists", this is the fallacy that you seem to commit. I know (and know of) many feminists who think that rape is primarily about power, but they would find your "they think men are evil" accusation hilarious.</i>

You've got your causation around the wrong way. I am not saying that everyone who thinks rape is about power is a militant feminist. I'm saying that everyone who is a militant feminist thinks that rape is about power. See the difference?

<i>There are many banal reasons why rape cannot be "only about power". ... If some rapist honestly tells you, "I fucked her because I was horny," this does not mean that the rape was "about sex".</i>

Yes it does. I'm not claiming that power is irrelevant - just that it is not the <b>only</b> thing which is relevant, as some people seriously try to claim.

<i>When rapists report, however truthfully, what they feel or think when they rape, this does not constitute some kind of psychological self-examination on their part any more than truthful reports of paranoid feelings constitute an explanation of paranoid schizophrenia.</i>

I agree.

<i>Lo, a new brand of feminism. So are postmodern feminists the common sense type or the amazonian type?</i>

Perhaps not the best choice of words on my part. However, I see a definite correlation between militant feminism (as I have used the term above) and support for views usually described as post-modernist. Again, causation only goes one way on this one - don't get me wrong again.

<i>Postmodernism is a stupid label appropriated by hippie relativists to describe a century-plus old philosophical tradition.</i>

You are, of course, entitled to your view. However, the label seems to be commonly applied to describe a certain range of views and their proponents.

<i>At any rate, I assure you that Foucault is no fan of amazonia, and calling someone a postmodernist just doesn't do as a criticism.</i>

I'm not criticising postmodernism here (yet ).


<b>Xev:</b>

<i>Again, I do not unnecessarily stereotype you as a prudish geek by your discomfort with profanity and your knowledge of physics. I'd ask you not to stereotype me as a psychotic feminist for my beliefs about sex.</i>

When did this become a discussion about you? I have at no time stereotyped you, and in fact have specifically denied doing so. You personalise things far too much.

<i>How nice for you. I was not referring to myself, more that you've labelled the defenders of one idea (rape primarily a power function) as a certain thing (militant feminist).</i>

Can you show me it is not that thing? (BTW, there's more to militant feminism than a single claim.)

Again, it is nice that you were not referring to yourself. I was not referring to you either. So we're both happy, right?

<i>I was not aware, also, that rapists (with a vested interest in looking good for parole boards) were so good at self analysis.</i>

See my replies to Tyler.

<i>I would, however, be quite ecstatic to realize that rape is merely the pursuit of sex at all costs.</i>

I never claimed it was that.

<i>Actually, I think he's summarizing a Greek philosopher. But your ad hominem is duly noted and ignored.</i>

Ad hominem at whom? Foucault? I didn't attack him at all.