formerly What is Marriage For?
@lfeatherstone, who is a Lib Dem MP and Equalities minister in the Coalition government, argues that neither the state nor the church "owns" marriage. Quoting a remark by a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, who had said that the Church doesn't own marriage, she interprets this to mean that marriage should belong to the people, and urges people not to polarize the debate on extending marriage to same-sex couples.
However, Lord Carey disputes her interpretation of his remark. "When I said that not even the Church owns it (marriage), I meant that the Church has no authority to change the definition of marriage as far as Christian thinking is concerned - there is a givenness to it."
Meanwhile for Pope Benedict XVI, marriage owns reproduction. Wrapping up a 3-day Vatican conference on infertility, His Holiness asserted that marriage and marital sexual intercourse (putting it in and jiggling it about a bit) is the proper way to create a human being, and reiterated his attack on artificial procreation (including IVF) as a form of arrogance. Matrimony, he said, “constitutes the only ‘place’ worthy of the call to existence of a new human being”.
The opposition to same-sex marriage seems to be based on the converse assertion, that reproduction owns marriage. The purpose of marriage being to propagate the species, or so the argument goes, therefore no relationship can count as true marriage if it lacks the potential to propagate.
We might imagine that this exclusion would also rule out the marriage of infertile people, as well as those who are past child-bearing age. But there are many examples in the Bible of elderly and infertile women suddenly producing children (Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Hannah, Elizabeth, ...), so if faith can overcome such obstacles, why can't a child spring (like Dionysus) from the thigh of a man?
Elsewhere, the purpose of marriage is said to be companionship, binding two people together in love and spiritual union, although theologians tie themselves in knots when they try to restrict this to sexual love. (Why shouldn't two elderly sisters who share a house have the same rights of inheritance as a lesbian couple? Why is civil partnership only available to those who share a bed? And what about the curious concept of a celibate civil partnership, which seems to be the only option available to homosexual priests?)
The confusion here is that marriage has many purposes, including social and legal ones. We may not wish to pry into the bedrooms of our friends, and we may be very reluctant to grant the immigration and tax authorities the right to pry into anyone's bedroom. And when a couple (of any kind) proudly and lovingly produce a child, it really shouldn't matter by what feats of acrobatics or bioengineering, and with the collaboration of which other parties, the child was engendered.
But I'm guessing that Archbishop Carey and Pope Ratzinger aren't going to be in a hurry to bless the offspring of - to pick a random example - Elton John and David Furnish.
Lynne Featherstone, This is not gay rights versus religious beliefs (Daily Telegraph, 24 February 2012)
John Bingham, Lynne Featherstone tells Church 'don't polarise gay marriage debate' (Daily Telegraph, 24 February 2012)
Church 'does not own marriage' (BBC News, 25 February 2012)
Pope decries artifical procreation; fertility treatments as ‘arrogant’ (New York Daily News 25 February 2012)
Pope says arrogance drives infertility field, tells couples to shun artificial procreation (Washington Post, 25 February 2012)
Juniper Berry, What the Bible says about God and the infertile woman (Squidoo)
Updated 13 June 2015
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saturday, February 04, 2012
The Exception Proves the Rule - Gender
Last week, a story appeared in several papers about a woman who was described as a sex addict. Crystal Warren (42) claimed to have slept with over a thousand men.
Earlier this week, the woman was interviewed on breakfast TV. The interviewer, veteran presenter Eamonn Homes (52) caused some outrage by asking her whether she had ever considered charging for sex.
In a further twist, the woman is now revealed to have been born a man, and to have had a sex-change operation in 2005.
Earlier this week, the woman was interviewed on breakfast TV. The interviewer, veteran presenter Eamonn Homes (52) caused some outrage by asking her whether she had ever considered charging for sex.
In a further twist, the woman is now revealed to have been born a man, and to have had a sex-change operation in 2005.
Not only do many of the details of the earlier stories now turn out to be inaccurate or misleading, but some may question whether Ms Warren can serve as a legitimate exception to a presumed general pattern of female sexual desire and behaviour, which had presumably been the point of publishing the story in the first place. Nevertheless, Ms Warren is now a celebrity and This is Somerset proudly announces that Ms Warren grew up in Somerset. Obviously the only way isn't Essex then.
See also Alexander Boot Sex Drugs and Eamonn Holmes, Daily Mail 3 February 2012
Wikipedia: Exception that proves the rule
Friday, October 14, 2011
Sex and Death
Evolutionary psychologists have found another link between sex and death. Apparently death makes men more interested in sex.
Researchers at the University of Kansas told men to think about their own deaths, and found that men responded more vigorously to sexual pictures and had increased heart rates when viewing them, compared to when they thought about dental pain. Apparently this proves that men with low life expectancy are likely to shag anything that moves, in the hope of passing on their genes. Oh, for intercourse sake!
The researchers believe that contemplating one's death mimics conditions of 'low survivability'. It obviously hasn't occurred to them (a) that the contemplation of one's own death is a standard meditative practice, and that (b) contemplating dental pain is probably a lot more realistic and unpleasant than contemplating one's death.
(Contemplating one's own death may actually result in a longer and happier life, and we might imagine that women would prefer to get pregnant by men with better life chances. We might also imagine that the total quantity of sexual activity is influenced by female psychology as well as male psychology, but that's probably too complicated for Omri Gillath and his colleagues to work out.)
Bad Economy Means More Sex For Men (Science 2.0, October 2011)
See also Wynne Parry, Why thoughts of death may be good for you (LiveScience, 4 May 2012)
Researchers at the University of Kansas told men to think about their own deaths, and found that men responded more vigorously to sexual pictures and had increased heart rates when viewing them, compared to when they thought about dental pain. Apparently this proves that men with low life expectancy are likely to shag anything that moves, in the hope of passing on their genes. Oh, for intercourse sake!
The researchers believe that contemplating one's death mimics conditions of 'low survivability'. It obviously hasn't occurred to them (a) that the contemplation of one's own death is a standard meditative practice, and that (b) contemplating dental pain is probably a lot more realistic and unpleasant than contemplating one's death.
(Contemplating one's own death may actually result in a longer and happier life, and we might imagine that women would prefer to get pregnant by men with better life chances. We might also imagine that the total quantity of sexual activity is influenced by female psychology as well as male psychology, but that's probably too complicated for Omri Gillath and his colleagues to work out.)
Bad Economy Means More Sex For Men (Science 2.0, October 2011)
See also Wynne Parry, Why thoughts of death may be good for you (LiveScience, 4 May 2012)
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Purpose of Sex
If we want to redesign sex, it would help if we knew what sex was for.
Writing in The New Scientist (15th June 2009), Nick Lane asks Has the mystery of sex been explained at last? , and quotes Canadian biologist Sally Otto.
Does this explain why even the most physically unattractive politicians seem to have vigorous sex lives? See my post on Sex and Stress.
Writing in The New Scientist (15th June 2009), Nick Lane asks Has the mystery of sex been explained at last? , and quotes Canadian biologist Sally Otto.
"sex is most advantageous when there's a lot of variation in a population, when mutation rates are high and selection pressures are great"
Does this explain why even the most physically unattractive politicians seem to have vigorous sex lives? See my post on Sex and Stress.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Sex and Design
If you are interested in the design of the human sex organs, there are some fascinating theories suggesting how they may have evolved in order to perform some complex biological functions.
Scientific American recently recycled a theory about the design of the penis propounded by Gordon Gallup. (Secrets of the Phallus, April 2009. Gallup's theory had been published by the BBC and New Scientist several years ago: Penis is a competitive beast, August 2003.) According to this theory, the shape and thrusting action of the penis has the function of removing old semen (including that of rival lovers) before depositing a fresh load. The partial lost of erection after ejaculation is an important design feature; it makes sure that the new semen is not removed as the penis is withdrawn.
Meanwhile, a separate theory, the delightfully named "upsuck theory", explains how the female organs are designed to select the sperm from the most desirable lover, pumping it upwards towards the uterus during orgasm.
There are significant problems with both theories. See for example Harry, Sally and Evolutionary Biology, which suggests that if these evolutionary mechanisms really worked, then humans would by now have evolved to have mind-blowing sex all the time. See also my earlier post on Female Pleasure, and an interview with Elisabeth Lloyd in Thinking Meat.
But it is what happens when you put these two theories together that bothers me here. Both theories appear to rely on POSIWID thinking - looking at some biological feature and trying to infer its purpose (in terms of a positive contribution to the survival and reproductive success of its owner). But it is usually incorrect to think of a single biological feature in isolation. These bits of biology interact to form complex systems, frantically pumping live semen in all directions.
So what (if anything) does POSIWID tell us about the whole system and its purpose? As Žižek argues (in To Read Too Many Books Is Harmful), human sexuality is not limited to the biological sphere: "sexuality is the very terrain where humans detach themselves from nature ... a drive that gets thwarted as to its natural goal (reproduction) ... thereby explodes into an infinite, properly meta-physical, passion".
The POSIWID principle doesn't mean we have to reduce all explanations to unobservable biological mechanisms. Human behaviour is driven or constrained by many forces, including social and spiritual ones.
See also my post on Redesigning Sex.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Female Pleasure 3
A controversial study claims that a woman finds lovemaking more fulfilling if her partner is wealthy. Wealthy men give women more orgasms (The Times, 18th January 2009) Why rich men are better in bed: Women have more orgasms with wealthy partners, study finds (Daily Mail, 20th January 2009).
Another bit of pseudo-science from the evolutionary biology brigade.
The study is based on a survey of some 1500 Chinese women, and appears to show some statistical correlation between prosperity and pleasure. Here are some of the possible explanations discussed by the Daily Mail, a paper popular with women who have (or would like to have) wealthy partners.
- Women who have frequent orgasms tend to overestimate their partner's income
- Women with 'high powered' partners exaggerate how much they enjoy sex
- Women who are highly susceptible to orgasms select partners who are wealthy
- More desirable mates cause women to experience more orgasms
In evolutionary biology, the game is always to find an explanation that shows how some trait has evolved to yield some reproductive advantage. Thus Thomas Pollet, who has just completed a PhD at the Center for Evolution and Behaviour at Newcastle University, speculates that a woman's 'capacity for orgasm' could have evolved to help her discriminate between males on the basis of their quality. In an earlier paper, Sexual Selection as a Mechanism for Conspicuous Consumption (pdf), Pollet implied that women discriminated between mates on the basis of leisure activity and expensive gifts, so his views have obviously matured with experience.
Note that the Daily Mail mostly prints explanations based on female choice, because this flatters its female readership, and overlooks explanations based on male choice - for example, rich men choose randy girlfriends and dump them if they stop being randy. I'm not saying that this explanation is any better than the ones the Daily Mail prints, I'm just saying that the Daily Mail is being selective about the rubbish they print.
In contrast, The Times gives wealthy men the credit for "giving" women more, and interprets Pollet's findings as "suggesting that women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers". Obviously pandering for a male readership then.
Finally, in the comments to the Daily Mail article we can find a more down-to-earth explanation. "There is nothing like money worries to dampen your sex drive." (I think there is something in one of George Orwell's early novels about this effect, but I can't seem to find it.)
Update
Just found an excellent blog called Lust in Paradise, making similar points to mine. It concludes as follows."The point is that studies like this one are conducted in a socio-economic context that simply did not exist in prehistory, when all this evolving supposedly took place. Yet the central conceit of mainstream evolutionary psychology is that these findings reflect some eternal truths about men, women, and the allocation of resources. The fact that there's a gaping hole in the center of their narrative doesn't stop them telling us what female orgasms are saying though..."
See also post by
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Ovulation and Sexual Attraction
According to the latest pseudo-science, "wearing red 'boosts attraction' ... experts say that red signals ovulation". [BBC News 28 October 2008]
A previous study showed that "Sexy walks 'keep men off scent' ... those with alluring walks were the furthest away from ovulation ... women disguise their fertility to deter unsuitable partners". [BBC News 8 November 2007]
So if men are attracted to women when they are ovulating, this is because the women are unconsciously broadcasting something; and if men are attracted to women when they are not ovulating, this is because they are unconsciously broadcasting the exact opposite. Got that?
Both pieces of research take female behaviour, as well as male reactions to this behaviour, to be somehow biologically determined. It appears that the researchers expected the sexy walk to coincide with ovulation. But when this hypothesis was disproved they simply reversed the theory, in order to preserve their assumption of biological determinism. That's why I call this stuff pseudo-science.
A previous study showed that "Sexy walks 'keep men off scent' ... those with alluring walks were the furthest away from ovulation ... women disguise their fertility to deter unsuitable partners". [BBC News 8 November 2007]
So if men are attracted to women when they are ovulating, this is because the women are unconsciously broadcasting something; and if men are attracted to women when they are not ovulating, this is because they are unconsciously broadcasting the exact opposite. Got that?
Both pieces of research take female behaviour, as well as male reactions to this behaviour, to be somehow biologically determined. It appears that the researchers expected the sexy walk to coincide with ovulation. But when this hypothesis was disproved they simply reversed the theory, in order to preserve their assumption of biological determinism. That's why I call this stuff pseudo-science.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Playboy models and economic crisis
Is there no depth to which once-respectable newspapers will delve to find titillating stories to entertain their readers? Daniel Finkelstein of The Times reports an alleged correlation between economic prosperity and soft porn - What the economic crisis will do to Playboy models (October 17th 2008). Apparently men prefer taller women during an economic downturn. See also Marginal Revolution. For a contrary view, see Indexed.
Apart from the fact that the correlation is based on such a small sample that its statistical validity is very weak, the analysis assumes that any correlation can be explained in terms of male preferences for different kinds of women. This preference is then explained in terms of evolutionary biology - the so-called Environmental Security Hypothesis. Ha!
Evolutionary biology provides a catch-all kind of explanation for all sorts of nonsense, including sexist nonsense. I'm not saying that all evolutionary biology is suspect, but much of what reaches the lay reader seems to be based on very poor science.
The reason this is a bad explanation for this particular phenomenon is that it is looking at the wrong system. There is a simple economic system based on women taking their clothes off for magazines, and this system is controlled by editors, photographers, models and their agents. The models are not selected by the readers, but by professionals who think they know what the readers want. The selection is primarily driven by economic forces of supply and demand, and there are fairly obvious ways in which the economic environment might affect these forces - for example women who are capable of getting good jobs in good economic conditions may be forced to find less dignified work when times get harder. The idea that the selection of models is based on evolutionary biology seems pretty far-fetched, because there is no obvious mechanism connecting cause and effect.
Now that nicely spoken boys from good schools can't get jobs in the City, some of them may become footballers instead. Some women (and gay men) might find some of these footballers more fanciable, because they know a bit of Ovid as well as the offside rule. No doubt the evolutionary biologists would try to explain this in terms of the Environmental Security Hypothesis as well. Ha!
Daniel Finkelstein, What the economic crisis will do to Playboy models (17 October 2008)
Jessica Hagy, Unattainable is always sexy (Indexed, 22 October 2008)
Terry F. Pettijohn, II and Brian J. Jungeberg, Playboy Playmate Curves: Changes in Facial and Body Feature Preferences Across Social and Economic Conditions
(Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, September 2004)
Alex Tabarrok, The Playmate Indicator (Marginal Revolution, 16 October 2008)
Gregory D Webster, Playboy Playmates, The Dow Jones, Consumer Sentiment, 9/11 and the Doomsday Clock: A Critical Examination of the Environmental Security Hypothesis (Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology
2008, 2 (2): 23-41)
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Fundamental Programming
While browsing through some BBC News items for the previous post on the Purpose of Hormones, I came across the fascinating work of one Dr Nick Neave, of Northumbria University.
Dr Nick, who writes popular articles in the Daily Mail, and is regularly consulted by the science journalists on the BBC News website, believes that women are fundamentally programmed to depend on men. (Footnote for geeks: can anyone tell me the difference between fundamental programming and any other kind of programming? No, I thought not.)
Dr Nick has also studied sexual attraction
Dr Nick, who is an expert on testosterone, suffers from male pattern baldness. Wikipedia reveals that this form of hair loss is related to hormones called androgens, particularly an androgen called dihydrotestosterone (DHT).
Dr Nick Neave, Northumbria University
Dr Nick, who writes popular articles in the Daily Mail, and is regularly consulted by the science journalists on the BBC News website, believes that women are fundamentally programmed to depend on men. (Footnote for geeks: can anyone tell me the difference between fundamental programming and any other kind of programming? No, I thought not.)
- "Sorry, but women are dependent on men." [Daily Mail, 4th December 2006]
- Some evidence of a female advantage in object location memory using ecologically valid stimuli [Human Nature Vol 16 No 2, June 2005]
- Spatial skills such as map reading and parking may be difficult for some women because they had too little testosterone in the womb. [BBC News 24 January 2005 via BastardLogic]
Dr Nick has also studied sexual attraction
- "Females, like males, are always looking to enhance their reproductive success by trading upwards." [BBC News, 16 August 2005]
- "A male face with some attributes of both masculinity and femininity is attractive. ... Women kind of like your macho-but-sensitive type." [Times Online, 20 August 2003]
Dr Nick, who is an expert on testosterone, suffers from male pattern baldness. Wikipedia reveals that this form of hair loss is related to hormones called androgens, particularly an androgen called dihydrotestosterone (DHT).
Dr Nick Neave, Northumbria University
Purpose of Hormones
Lots of stories on the BBC News website about hormones and their effects. Is this because it is a popular subject for research, or a popular subject for science journalism?
Effects on sexual attraction
Effects on parenting
Effects on health
Effects on business
Other effects
Most of these stories are related to testosterone, oestrogen and/or progesterone. The stories come from a range of sources, and sometimes contradict one another. The explanations overlap and sometimes conflict. See my previous post on Face Values Applied to Love Game.
It would seem (not surprisingly) that hormones have some effect (albeit confusingly), at least on reproduction. So it might make sense to infer the purpose of these hormones from these effects. For expertise in these matters, the BBC generally turns to one Dr Nick Neave.
The purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID).
Effects on sexual attraction
- Feminine males 'more attractive'
- 'Hormonal' women most attractive
- Women's choice of men goes in cycles
- Asymmetrical men 'are a turn-off'
Effects on parenting
Effects on health
- Masculine men 'are healthier'
- Sex hormone could help mental health
- Sex hormone blamed for forgetfulness (misleading headline - actually it's a lack of the hormone that is said to cause forgetfulness)
Effects on business
Other effects
Most of these stories are related to testosterone, oestrogen and/or progesterone. The stories come from a range of sources, and sometimes contradict one another. The explanations overlap and sometimes conflict. See my previous post on Face Values Applied to Love Game.
It would seem (not surprisingly) that hormones have some effect (albeit confusingly), at least on reproduction. So it might make sense to infer the purpose of these hormones from these effects. For expertise in these matters, the BBC generally turns to one Dr Nick Neave.
Dr Nick Neave, a psychologist at Northumbria University, told the BBC News website that a fall in testosterone was nature's way of ensuring men behaved in a "civilised" and non-aggressive way around newborn offspring. [BBC News 9 November 2005]
The purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID).
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Face values applied to love game
According to recent research, many heterosexual people can accurately judge from photographs who would be more interested in a short-term sexual relationship or a long-term relationship. [BBC News, 9 April 2008]
But which is cause and which is effect? Are people more promiscuous because they are more attractive to the opposite sex (therefore more opportunities, one might think), or are people more attracted to those who might be more available?
(By the way, a man or woman may have a rational preference for partners who are capable of commitment, but sexual attraction doesn't always coincide with rational preference. And in any case, the only real proof that a potential partner is capable of commitment is that they are already committed - to someone else.)
(Note also that attraction is not based solely on physical appearance - but it sometimes helps. Other things being equal, we may expect some degree of correlation.)
Interestingly, the research looked not at behaviour (how much casual sex do people actually have) but preferences (are people inclined towards casual sex or longer-term commitment). The mere fact that a person wants casual sex and/or longer-term commitment doesn't mean that person is attractive or otherwise together enough to fulfil these wants.
But there are two processes that might correct this imbalance over time. The first is endogenous preference formation - people change their preferences according to their experiences. Jon Elster, a sociologist with an excellent appreciation for poetry and myth, wrote a book about this phenomenon called Sour Grapes. See also Sour Grapes, Sweet Lemons, and the Anticipatory Rationalization of the Status Quo (pdf).
The other process is evolutionary. Genes that produce people who are unattractive to the opposite sex, and genes that are associated with reproductively unsuccessful preferences, will be disadvantaged. In terms of reproduction, of course, both casual sex and longer-term commitment may be successful strategies; promiscuous people don't necessarily have more offspring, and many avoid having children altogether, while I guess most children are born into relationships that were thought at the time (by at least one partner) to be reasonably long-term.
Footnote
The BBC uses two images of women to illustrate this report. Curiously, almost the same two images were used in a previous report, apparently emanating from the same research team, but telling a rather different story - 'Hormonal' women most attractive [BBC News, 2 November 2005] Are these two explanations linked?
Related posts
Purpose of Hormones (April 2008)
Purpose of Sex (June 2009)
Explaining Bodies (February 2013)
But which is cause and which is effect? Are people more promiscuous because they are more attractive to the opposite sex (therefore more opportunities, one might think), or are people more attracted to those who might be more available?
(By the way, a man or woman may have a rational preference for partners who are capable of commitment, but sexual attraction doesn't always coincide with rational preference. And in any case, the only real proof that a potential partner is capable of commitment is that they are already committed - to someone else.)
(Note also that attraction is not based solely on physical appearance - but it sometimes helps. Other things being equal, we may expect some degree of correlation.)
Interestingly, the research looked not at behaviour (how much casual sex do people actually have) but preferences (are people inclined towards casual sex or longer-term commitment). The mere fact that a person wants casual sex and/or longer-term commitment doesn't mean that person is attractive or otherwise together enough to fulfil these wants.
But there are two processes that might correct this imbalance over time. The first is endogenous preference formation - people change their preferences according to their experiences. Jon Elster, a sociologist with an excellent appreciation for poetry and myth, wrote a book about this phenomenon called Sour Grapes. See also Sour Grapes, Sweet Lemons, and the Anticipatory Rationalization of the Status Quo (pdf).
The other process is evolutionary. Genes that produce people who are unattractive to the opposite sex, and genes that are associated with reproductively unsuccessful preferences, will be disadvantaged. In terms of reproduction, of course, both casual sex and longer-term commitment may be successful strategies; promiscuous people don't necessarily have more offspring, and many avoid having children altogether, while I guess most children are born into relationships that were thought at the time (by at least one partner) to be reasonably long-term.
Footnote
The BBC uses two images of women to illustrate this report. Curiously, almost the same two images were used in a previous report, apparently emanating from the same research team, but telling a rather different story - 'Hormonal' women most attractive [BBC News, 2 November 2005] Are these two explanations linked?
Related posts
Purpose of Hormones (April 2008)
Purpose of Sex (June 2009)
Explaining Bodies (February 2013)
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Female Pleasure 2
Following my previous post on the purpose of female pleasure, my attention has been drawn (by this post in the Now Economy blog) to a piece of research (pdf) that suggests that oxytocin increases trusting behaviour. (The Now Economy blog raises important questions about the reseach method for measuring trusting behaviour, but I'm not going to address these questions here.)
Oxytocin has often been cited as a mechanism linking female pleasure to a range of social and biological effects.
Meanwhile Marnia Robinson and Gary Wilson argue that conventional sex tends to over-stimulate the pleasure/reward center deep within the brain. Over time, this leads to subconscious defensiveness and emotional distance between partners. Once uneasiness enters an intimate relationship, the bond between the partners tends to weaken, ultimately producing less oxytocin. In their view, biology's agenda unravels relationships over time despite oxytocin's bonding properties, and they advocate alternative practices that maintain and increase oxytocin between partners - in other words, intervening to subvert what they believe to be biology's agenda.
So now we have two theories. One in which the quantity of trust depends on the quantity of oxytocin, and one in which the quantity of oxytocin depends on the quantity of trust.
If we can't tell which is the effect, and which the cause, then POSIWID becomes a spiral.
Oxytocin has often been cited as a mechanism linking female pleasure to a range of social and biological effects.
- Oxytocin is an altruistic hormone, a love hormone (Michael Odent)
- Oxytocin deficiency enhances stress, obesity and psychotic behavior, impairs cognitive functions and increases breast-cancer risk. (Wai Says)
Meanwhile Marnia Robinson and Gary Wilson argue that conventional sex tends to over-stimulate the pleasure/reward center deep within the brain. Over time, this leads to subconscious defensiveness and emotional distance between partners. Once uneasiness enters an intimate relationship, the bond between the partners tends to weaken, ultimately producing less oxytocin. In their view, biology's agenda unravels relationships over time despite oxytocin's bonding properties, and they advocate alternative practices that maintain and increase oxytocin between partners - in other words, intervening to subvert what they believe to be biology's agenda.
So now we have two theories. One in which the quantity of trust depends on the quantity of oxytocin, and one in which the quantity of oxytocin depends on the quantity of trust.
If we can't tell which is the effect, and which the cause, then POSIWID becomes a spiral.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Female Pleasure
Does female pleasure have any purpose? Someone has just written a book on the subject, and there are people all over the blogosphere getting very excited about it.
Press Stories: God's Gift to Women, New York Times, Proof of God,
Chat: Babble
Bloggers: Alina Stefanescu, Brothers Judd, Lorraine Berry,
Weird: The Sacred Purpose
Some biologists including Stephen Jay Gould have thought that female pleasure has no evolutionary purpose. (A similar argument might apply to male pleasure: it is arousal that triggers reproductive activity, not the subsequent pleasure.) However, sociobiologists such as Desmond Morris have suggested it could be a reward for pair bonding.
From a POSIWID perspective, there are two main lines of enquiry. Firstly, it's not difficult to imagine that sexual pleasure might make a difference to the behaviour of at least some women, with both biological (reproduction) and social consequences. Perhaps it's easier to detect social effects than biological ones, although some scientists have suggested biological effects as well (including the upsuck theory).
Secondly, it's possible to observe a range of social arrangements (including various forms of repression and violence) whose effect may be to reduce the biological and social effect of female pleasure. For example, if a woman is encouraged to remain "pure" until she marries and "faithful" afterwards, then her sexual experience will be insufficient to affect her choice of husband. And various forms of coercion and violence interfere with the woman's power to choose when to conceive and with whom.
At the other extreme, in a society where young people can experience safe sex with many partners before settling down, the biological and social importance of female pleasure may also be reduced. By the time the woman is ready to choose a steady mate, she may have been fortunate enough to experience a great deal of sexual pleasure, but that doesn't mean she is going to make this the sole criterion for her biological or social choices.
In other words, the power of this particular POSIWID may be affected by the social context. It is an individual and collective choice whether we allow this pleasant biological reflex to control our behaviour. These choices have certainly changed in many countries over the past fifty years.
Let us now analyse this social change in systems terms. From the 1960s onwards, changes in contraceptive and reproductive technology have permitted changes to sexual values, resulting in modified sexual behaviour, which weakens the POSIWID that upheld the old social system. This is a complex change spannng several levels of Donella Meadows' intervention model.
Update: See new post on oxytocin and trust.
A further challenge to the evolutionary biologists comes from The Riddle of the Sphincter - Why do women who have anal sex get more orgasms? by William Saletan, (Slate 11 Oct 2010). Salatan identifies many possible explanations for this phenomenon, which certainly seems to contradict the simplistic account of female pleasure which evolutionary biologists seem to favour.
Press Stories: God's Gift to Women, New York Times, Proof of God,
Chat: Babble
Bloggers: Alina Stefanescu, Brothers Judd, Lorraine Berry,
Weird: The Sacred Purpose
Some biologists including Stephen Jay Gould have thought that female pleasure has no evolutionary purpose. (A similar argument might apply to male pleasure: it is arousal that triggers reproductive activity, not the subsequent pleasure.) However, sociobiologists such as Desmond Morris have suggested it could be a reward for pair bonding.
From a POSIWID perspective, there are two main lines of enquiry. Firstly, it's not difficult to imagine that sexual pleasure might make a difference to the behaviour of at least some women, with both biological (reproduction) and social consequences. Perhaps it's easier to detect social effects than biological ones, although some scientists have suggested biological effects as well (including the upsuck theory).
Secondly, it's possible to observe a range of social arrangements (including various forms of repression and violence) whose effect may be to reduce the biological and social effect of female pleasure. For example, if a woman is encouraged to remain "pure" until she marries and "faithful" afterwards, then her sexual experience will be insufficient to affect her choice of husband. And various forms of coercion and violence interfere with the woman's power to choose when to conceive and with whom.
At the other extreme, in a society where young people can experience safe sex with many partners before settling down, the biological and social importance of female pleasure may also be reduced. By the time the woman is ready to choose a steady mate, she may have been fortunate enough to experience a great deal of sexual pleasure, but that doesn't mean she is going to make this the sole criterion for her biological or social choices.
In other words, the power of this particular POSIWID may be affected by the social context. It is an individual and collective choice whether we allow this pleasant biological reflex to control our behaviour. These choices have certainly changed in many countries over the past fifty years.
Let us now analyse this social change in systems terms. From the 1960s onwards, changes in contraceptive and reproductive technology have permitted changes to sexual values, resulting in modified sexual behaviour, which weakens the POSIWID that upheld the old social system. This is a complex change spannng several levels of Donella Meadows' intervention model.
Update: See new post on oxytocin and trust.
A further challenge to the evolutionary biologists comes from The Riddle of the Sphincter - Why do women who have anal sex get more orgasms? by William Saletan, (Slate 11 Oct 2010). Salatan identifies many possible explanations for this phenomenon, which certainly seems to contradict the simplistic account of female pleasure which evolutionary biologists seem to favour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)