Ian C. Blenke wrote:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
>
>> Levi Bard wrote:
>>
>>>> When sex becomes a casual thing, societies fall apart. Look at
>>>> history, every
>>>> single society where promiscuity is common place, is gone. I find it an
>>>> excellent yardstick for how ethical a society is. Having travelled
>>>> half the
>>>> world it's served me well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Every single society that predates the modern era is gone. I don't
>>> think you can blame promiscuity for that; it's just the way it goes.
>>> Also, please name for me some societies where promiscuity is *not*
>>> commonplace - the only ones I can think of are in Muslim
>>> fundamentalist theocracies.
>>
>>
>>
>> Promiscuity didn't cause it. It was an *indicator* of the pending
>> demise of past societies. There were other indicators as well,
>> generally related to a degradation of morality and ethics.
>>
>> You can't name current societies without rampant promiscuity (except
>> for fundamentalist theocracies), because there *aren't* any currently.
>
>
>
> Likewise, can you really point at ANY human society where that hasn't
> been a problem?
Nope. That's why we're here now. Ultimately, human societies succumb to
depravity and self-destruct.
>
> Any society you designate may have the outward appearance of lacking
> such behavior, but human nature dictates it _did_ happen, it just wasn't
> documented.
>
I'm inclined to disagree to some extent. While it may be true that such
behaviors (not just promiscuity, but avarice and other "sins") may have
occurred throughout history, there are two points where I'd diverge
here. First, there is the question of *how much* such behavior occurred.
I'm inclined to believe that in the early stages of a civilization, such
behavior is extremely rare. The second influencing factor is the
acceptance level of a society. To the extent that society comes to
accept such behavior, its prevalence will increase.
Again, sex is just one point. It's the overall morality of a society
that presages its demise.
> Humans are animals. Understanding that is the first step in dealing with
> our emergent behaviors.
>
Er, no. Humans have animal bodies, but they are not animals. Animals
don't build skyscrapers, drive cars or write poetry. Now if you
subscribe to the idea that humans and animals are just so much chemical
debris, then I suppose you have a point. However, I don't. I believe
there is a spark that animates life, completely beyond the chemicals
that compose its bodies. That spark (the *soul* you might say) is what
defines behavior. While it can be influenced by chemical (drugs,
poisons), ultimately the soul is independent of the body and controls
what the body does. This includes plants, animals and humans.
> Society is the facade we try to keep people from regressing to mob rule.
> The more strict the control, arguably the more civil we are to one another.
>
> There was a great article on primate "cops" keeping control of groups
> that is applicable to this behavior:
>
> http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060126_monkey_cops.html
>
> I'm all for a civil enlightened society.
>
> I'm not fond, however, of people claiming that sex is purely "male
> female procreation", and that anything else is "evil" or otherwise
> "immoral". Human sexuality, like our primate cousins, and like most
> other mammals, is far more diverse than this. Biology and evolution have
> ensured this behavior is in the minority (we don't breed for those
> behaviors, right?), but that behavior is something that is part of who
> we are as a species. To ignore it or deplore it is ignorance, not
> enlightenment.
>
Deviant sexual behavior is far more rare in nature than you imagine. It
has little or no survival benefit, which is the point of all behavior.
Because sex is pleasurable, it happens a lot. Not just for the purpose
of procreation, though ultimately that is why we have it. Sex can take
any shape you like. The question is what shape makes it "moral"? You can
say that this changes from time to time, and it does. However, the
original point was that when this happens (in the direction of more
laxness), it is an indicator of the pending demise of a society.
> To say "sex is not a casual thing" is also severely myopic.
>
> Nothing in life is black and white. There are always varying shades of
> grey. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I am willing to
> listen, think about things a little, and adapt to the realities
> presented to me the best I can. "Do unto others as you would have them
> do unto you" is a pretty good summation of one of the primary morals for
> any society.
>
Situational ethics.
The choice of black, white or gray is entirely up to the individual and
the society. As an individual, you make a conscious choice about where
you draw that gray line. I draw life in far more black and white than
you do. There are far fewer shades of gray for me.
It should be obvious that any society which has complete laxness of
moral and ethical standards cannot survive. It will actually
self-destruct, slowly or quickly.
Paul
-- Paul M. Foster
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:05:35 EDT