3 ms·

Isn't the original purpose of society to control access to sex?

coldtea 8y ago
No, the original purpose of society is for its members to leverage each other to achieve more / be safer etc than as lone individuals. Controlling access to sex was one of the ways societies found to achieve those goals. For a simple example, communities with much laxer sex rules, found themselves frequently torn by relationship related feuds. Requiring (and punishing non-adherence) to sticking to some fixed husband/wife is what they found to prevent (not absolutely solve) such issues. They then invented religious and other justifications for the practice to normalize it further. Certain kinds of marital arrangement also helped keep money in the same extended family, etc. Different such goals evolved different strategies to achieve them.
- roenxi 8y ago
  Are you certain about that thesis? "Lax sex rules" haven't torn apart the modern world and were probably quite prevalent through history. Plausibly, in the good old days before washing machines when keeping a home together was a gargantuan task, the economic equilibrium just happened to be 1:1 male/female pairings. Examining the substance of marriage law in England, for example, suggests that most of meat of law and custom revolves around inheritance law. People get swallowed up in the pageantry, but the legal trouble starts when assets are involved.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Are you certain about that thesis? "Lax sex rules" haven't torn apart the modern world For one, we now have more elaborate laws and enforcement of them, and people are much more docile and civilized. We don't just go and beat each other up like in communities of yore. Try an extramarital affair in old rural community though (not even an ancient one), and watch what happens (e.g. the husband blowing your brain with a shotgun). Second, depends on the definition of "torn apart". E.g.: https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v3i9/U0VQMTQ0MA==.pdf https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v3i9/U0VQMTQ0MA==.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327 https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=1673... https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1078&context=edd_diss https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756061616300957 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175606161... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2593091/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2593091/ And let's not even add "crimes of passion" (what those societies tried to avoid). E.g.: In New York City, 1 in 4 homeless households became homeless because of domestic violence or crimes of passion. Nearly 15% of women have been injured by an act that could be classified as a crime of passion. https://brandongaille.com/27-intriguing-crimes-of-passion-statistics/ https://brandongaille.com/27-intriguing-crimes-of-passion-st... >and were probably quite prevalent through history.* I you mean that some people always had all kinds of sex relations, yes (nobody said adherence and enforcement was or could be absolute or affect the powerful as much as the masses). If you mean that there were fringe societies (e.g. those studied by ethnology) that had lax sex rules, then also yes. If you mean that big well known historical societies at large embraced and accepted lax sexual behaviors, that's wrong. E.g.: https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-myth-of-the-ancient-greek-gay-utopia-88397 https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-myth-of-the-anc...

No, the original purpose of society is for its members to leverage each other to achieve more / be safer etc than as lone individuals. Controlling access to sex was one of the ways societies found to achieve those goals. For a simple example, communities with much laxer sex rules, found themselves frequently torn by relationship related feuds. Requiring (and punishing non-adherence) to sticking to some fixed husband/wife is what they found to prevent (not absolutely solve) such issues. They then invented religious and other justifications for the practice to normalize it further. Certain kinds of marital arrangement also helped keep money in the same extended family, etc. Different such goals evolved different strategies to achieve them.

roenxi 8y ago
Are you certain about that thesis? "Lax sex rules" haven't torn apart the modern world and were probably quite prevalent through history. Plausibly, in the good old days before washing machines when keeping a home together was a gargantuan task, the economic equilibrium just happened to be 1:1 male/female pairings. Examining the substance of marriage law in England, for example, suggests that most of meat of law and custom revolves around inheritance law. People get swallowed up in the pageantry, but the legal trouble starts when assets are involved.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Are you certain about that thesis? "Lax sex rules" haven't torn apart the modern world For one, we now have more elaborate laws and enforcement of them, and people are much more docile and civilized. We don't just go and beat each other up like in communities of yore. Try an extramarital affair in old rural community though (not even an ancient one), and watch what happens (e.g. the husband blowing your brain with a shotgun). Second, depends on the definition of "torn apart". E.g.: https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v3i9/U0VQMTQ0MA==.pdf https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v3i9/U0VQMTQ0MA==.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327 https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=1673... https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1078&context=edd_diss https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756061616300957 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175606161... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2593091/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2593091/ And let's not even add "crimes of passion" (what those societies tried to avoid). E.g.: In New York City, 1 in 4 homeless households became homeless because of domestic violence or crimes of passion. Nearly 15% of women have been injured by an act that could be classified as a crime of passion. https://brandongaille.com/27-intriguing-crimes-of-passion-statistics/ https://brandongaille.com/27-intriguing-crimes-of-passion-st... >and were probably quite prevalent through history.* I you mean that some people always had all kinds of sex relations, yes (nobody said adherence and enforcement was or could be absolute or affect the powerful as much as the masses). If you mean that there were fringe societies (e.g. those studied by ethnology) that had lax sex rules, then also yes. If you mean that big well known historical societies at large embraced and accepted lax sexual behaviors, that's wrong. E.g.: https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-myth-of-the-ancient-greek-gay-utopia-88397 https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-myth-of-the-anc...