6 ms·

The repression of sex instead of violence is THE single most bizarre facet of human society. WHY are there so many taboos around an act that provides pleasure,

The repression of sex instead of violence is THE single most bizarre facet of human society. WHY are there so many taboos around an act that provides pleasure, reduces stress and literally creates life, that is the most natural instinct and urge of practically every single creature in known existence, but we can freely show depictions of ending someone's life and glamorize death, injury and misery? What the honest, actual, fuck.

roryrjb 7y ago
Great comment. One word: religion.
- chance_state 7y ago
  Don't you think people are naturally more private about sex though? I would be curious how people behaved wrt sex before the modern repressive religions came along.
  - rm_-rf_slash 7y ago
    >I would be curious how people behaved wrt sex before the modern repressive religions came along. My impression is it has less to do with religion itself but rather the culture. China under the CCP is far from a religious culture, but they’ve banned porn for decades. >Don’t you think people are naturally more private about sex though? The first rule of Fuck Club: don’t talk about Fuck Club.
  - dx87 7y ago
    I had to read a book about a tribe in the pacific islands, and they were more open about sex, but they still had some rules. For example, having multiple partners was considered immature behavior that is only acceptable for teenagers. Once the villagers got older, it was expected that they would get "married" and try to raise a family, but there was nothing forcing them to stay together. If they fell out of love, one would move out. As long as they stayed monogomous, it didn't matter how long they were in a relationship.
    - iguy 7y ago
      How did their food supply work? Very crudely, my understanding is that places where food meant plowing (i.e. heavy work) almost always had a strong marriage tradition. While places where growing food was light work quite often did not -- basically places where it was possible for a woman to raise children on her own labor. (Not very sure about non-farming people.)
      - dx87 7y ago
        IIRC, the men would go fishing or diving for seafood, and the women would mainly stay at home fixing things like fishing nets, preparing food, or gathering fruit. Most of the child rearing was done by female teenagers instead of adults.
- Scapeghost 7y ago
  I'd distill that further down: Control. This situation is probably the extreme form of instinctive control over mating rights. By denying potential competitors' access to mates, we hope to increase ours.
- cabaalis 7y ago
  Not religion. Augustine of Hippo.
- papito 7y ago
  Almost all "religious" rules are made by men, with others blindly following them. This makes you more pious and "religious", if you do. Did these people actually read the Bible? "So the two daughters get their farther drunk on wine, rape him, and have his children". Then the Bible moves on to the next tale, like "well, yeah, THAT just happened".
  - tobylane 7y ago
    I’m still surprised how much art is made of Lot and his daughters. Much of it is great, if it wasn’t for the subject and the burning towns in the background I’d buy a print or two.
  - Scapeghost 7y ago
    It all comes back to control. The leaders of religious communities/countries indulge in all sorts of hanky panky, so even they don't buy their own BS. Or see the recent scandal of Jeffrey Epstein and his sex trafficking for first world elites, or Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood's abusive underbelly. Or, closer to the topic here, the allegations of pedophilia involving UK's cream of the crop.
    - papito 7y ago
      Yes, and that's why I do not recognize the institution of church. Too many times it's just a grifting operation stiffing the chumps, and sometimes a hide-away for boy-loving pervs. Because who would ever question a priest?
dreary_dugong 7y ago
It originates from sexually transmitted infections. When the catholic church heavily encouraged abstinence suddenly people stopped dying from STI's as much. A combination of the church's influence on Western culture during that time period and all opposition dying out led to its ubiquity and it has stuck around as part of traditional moral values. The more Western culture has taken over the rest of the world, the more it's spread.
- Scapeghost 7y ago
  > A combination of the church's influence > The more Western culture has taken over the rest of the world, the more it's spread. I'm from a Middle Eastern culture, where shopping malls etc literally have "No Hand Holding" signs (actually against public displays of affection) (https://i.imgur.com/WVOoTBA.jpg https://i.imgur.com/WVOoTBA.jpg) so Western culture is still a lot better off, and the rest of Europe doesn't seem as stuck up about it as the UK/US.
  - temporaryvector 7y ago
    Sure, but while I have not done the research to back it up, I have the general feeling that a lot of religious prohibitions and traditions can have their origins traced back to rules from antiquity that made sense back then (stuff like not eating shellfish, for example) which were presented with a religious veneer to make them more memorable/enforceable. Over time these prohibitions got entrenched, extended, distorted because of misunderstandings, blind faith or more cynically, desire for control and power, and the original motivations were forgotten. This is, of course, a conclusion I came to without a lot of research so I'd love to take the time to look for evidence either way. If this is true, it would also follow that more fundamentalist regions would have stricter interpretations of those rules. I does not take much imagination to come up with a version of the US where religious fundamentalism leads to "No Hand Holding" signs, and I'm sure at least some people living in the US right now would approve of such controls (thankfully they are not the majority).
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Most regular people in the UK aren't nearly as stuck up about it. It always seems to be some sort of prudish edict from on high, from ageing or church going politicians or tabloids that forgot how to have fun. Usually ends up being a common cause to point at "the great and the good" or media and have a bloody good laugh. Since I first noticed one, probably 70s/80s video nasties or heavy metal played backwards causes satanism, exactly never have I actually met or spoken to anyone who wasn't having a laugh at the stupidity. (Whilst watching a 4th generation copy of Texas Chainsaw Massacre with friends)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Santosh83 7y ago
Most social norms also prohibit violence. Putting up depictions of violence (real, not video game/cartoon ones) can get the LE on you. Sadly simulated violence is given a free pass, despite some studies indicating there may be links between childhood exposure to simulated violence and actual violence later in life. As for why violence is less censored than sex, I suspect this has something to do with the fact that most of our history has been male dominated. For the male of the species, violence has been a way of life while sex was the ultimate end, so the prize was locked behind several closed doors. Violence was on the other hand was just a tool to achieve the prize, so there was less sense in censoring it.
- Scapeghost 7y ago
  > depictions of violence (real, not video game/cartoon ones) That's what I mean about depiction. Violence is glamorized right away from the very early stages of childhood. Toys, cartoons, comics and of course games showing weapons, fights, injuries etc but its unthinkable to show a kiss. There was an infamous scene from some movie or TV show that I can't remember the name of right now, where they didn't want to show naked corpses so they increased the amount of blood to cover them up... That must have been a cosmic facepalm moment where the Universe rearranged itself to put us in a corner far away from every other sentient species.
- Joe-Z 7y ago
  To add to your point of why violence might be less censored: It might also be, because it's just so much easier to engage in violence that it is to engage in sex. Like, I could go out in the street and punch anybody in the face (if I don't care about the consequences). This would be a lot harder if I'd try to go out and sex just anybody (silly example I know, but I think it drives home the point)
  - Scapeghost 7y ago
    > go out and sex just anybody It's not just about outright sex, but some cultures repress ALL and ANY sexual and romantic expression, like couples publically holding hands, kissing someone on the cheek, females and males even shaking hands at all, flirting, dating etc.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hh11 7y ago
Did you know that masturbating to porn causes hypofrontality (measurable brain damage to the frontal lobe). Watching violent films doesn't do that to you. https://www.covenanteyes.com/2014/02/28/hypofrontality/ https://www.covenanteyes.com/2014/02/28/hypofrontality/

roryrjb 7y ago

Great comment. One word: religion.

chance_state 7y ago
Don't you think people are naturally more private about sex though? I would be curious how people behaved wrt sex before the modern repressive religions came along.
- rm_-rf_slash 7y ago
  >I would be curious how people behaved wrt sex before the modern repressive religions came along. My impression is it has less to do with religion itself but rather the culture. China under the CCP is far from a religious culture, but they’ve banned porn for decades. >Don’t you think people are naturally more private about sex though? The first rule of Fuck Club: don’t talk about Fuck Club.
- dx87 7y ago
  I had to read a book about a tribe in the pacific islands, and they were more open about sex, but they still had some rules. For example, having multiple partners was considered immature behavior that is only acceptable for teenagers. Once the villagers got older, it was expected that they would get "married" and try to raise a family, but there was nothing forcing them to stay together. If they fell out of love, one would move out. As long as they stayed monogomous, it didn't matter how long they were in a relationship.
  - iguy 7y ago
    How did their food supply work? Very crudely, my understanding is that places where food meant plowing (i.e. heavy work) almost always had a strong marriage tradition. While places where growing food was light work quite often did not -- basically places where it was possible for a woman to raise children on her own labor. (Not very sure about non-farming people.)
    - dx87 7y ago
      IIRC, the men would go fishing or diving for seafood, and the women would mainly stay at home fixing things like fishing nets, preparing food, or gathering fruit. Most of the child rearing was done by female teenagers instead of adults.
Scapeghost 7y ago
I'd distill that further down: Control. This situation is probably the extreme form of instinctive control over mating rights. By denying potential competitors' access to mates, we hope to increase ours.
cabaalis 7y ago
Not religion. Augustine of Hippo.
papito 7y ago
Almost all "religious" rules are made by men, with others blindly following them. This makes you more pious and "religious", if you do. Did these people actually read the Bible? "So the two daughters get their farther drunk on wine, rape him, and have his children". Then the Bible moves on to the next tale, like "well, yeah, THAT just happened".
- tobylane 7y ago
  I’m still surprised how much art is made of Lot and his daughters. Much of it is great, if it wasn’t for the subject and the burning towns in the background I’d buy a print or two.
- Scapeghost 7y ago
  It all comes back to control. The leaders of religious communities/countries indulge in all sorts of hanky panky, so even they don't buy their own BS. Or see the recent scandal of Jeffrey Epstein and his sex trafficking for first world elites, or Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood's abusive underbelly. Or, closer to the topic here, the allegations of pedophilia involving UK's cream of the crop.
  - papito 7y ago
    Yes, and that's why I do not recognize the institution of church. Too many times it's just a grifting operation stiffing the chumps, and sometimes a hide-away for boy-loving pervs. Because who would ever question a priest?

dreary_dugong 7y ago

It originates from sexually transmitted infections. When the catholic church heavily encouraged abstinence suddenly people stopped dying from STI's as much. A combination of the church's influence on Western culture during that time period and all opposition dying out led to its ubiquity and it has stuck around as part of traditional moral values. The more Western culture has taken over the rest of the world, the more it's spread.

Scapeghost 7y ago
> A combination of the church's influence > The more Western culture has taken over the rest of the world, the more it's spread. I'm from a Middle Eastern culture, where shopping malls etc literally have "No Hand Holding" signs (actually against public displays of affection) (https://i.imgur.com/WVOoTBA.jpg https://i.imgur.com/WVOoTBA.jpg) so Western culture is still a lot better off, and the rest of Europe doesn't seem as stuck up about it as the UK/US.
- temporaryvector 7y ago
  Sure, but while I have not done the research to back it up, I have the general feeling that a lot of religious prohibitions and traditions can have their origins traced back to rules from antiquity that made sense back then (stuff like not eating shellfish, for example) which were presented with a religious veneer to make them more memorable/enforceable. Over time these prohibitions got entrenched, extended, distorted because of misunderstandings, blind faith or more cynically, desire for control and power, and the original motivations were forgotten. This is, of course, a conclusion I came to without a lot of research so I'd love to take the time to look for evidence either way. If this is true, it would also follow that more fundamentalist regions would have stricter interpretations of those rules. I does not take much imagination to come up with a version of the US where religious fundamentalism leads to "No Hand Holding" signs, and I'm sure at least some people living in the US right now would approve of such controls (thankfully they are not the majority).
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Most regular people in the UK aren't nearly as stuck up about it. It always seems to be some sort of prudish edict from on high, from ageing or church going politicians or tabloids that forgot how to have fun. Usually ends up being a common cause to point at "the great and the good" or media and have a bloody good laugh. Since I first noticed one, probably 70s/80s video nasties or heavy metal played backwards causes satanism, exactly never have I actually met or spoken to anyone who wasn't having a laugh at the stupidity. (Whilst watching a 4th generation copy of Texas Chainsaw Massacre with friends)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Santosh83 7y ago

Most social norms also prohibit violence. Putting up depictions of violence (real, not video game/cartoon ones) can get the LE on you. Sadly simulated violence is given a free pass, despite some studies indicating there may be links between childhood exposure to simulated violence and actual violence later in life. As for why violence is less censored than sex, I suspect this has something to do with the fact that most of our history has been male dominated. For the male of the species, violence has been a way of life while sex was the ultimate end, so the prize was locked behind several closed doors. Violence was on the other hand was just a tool to achieve the prize, so there was less sense in censoring it.

Scapeghost 7y ago
> depictions of violence (real, not video game/cartoon ones) That's what I mean about depiction. Violence is glamorized right away from the very early stages of childhood. Toys, cartoons, comics and of course games showing weapons, fights, injuries etc but its unthinkable to show a kiss. There was an infamous scene from some movie or TV show that I can't remember the name of right now, where they didn't want to show naked corpses so they increased the amount of blood to cover them up... That must have been a cosmic facepalm moment where the Universe rearranged itself to put us in a corner far away from every other sentient species.
Joe-Z 7y ago
To add to your point of why violence might be less censored: It might also be, because it's just so much easier to engage in violence that it is to engage in sex. Like, I could go out in the street and punch anybody in the face (if I don't care about the consequences). This would be a lot harder if I'd try to go out and sex just anybody (silly example I know, but I think it drives home the point)
- Scapeghost 7y ago
  > go out and sex just anybody It's not just about outright sex, but some cultures repress ALL and ANY sexual and romantic expression, like couples publically holding hands, kissing someone on the cheek, females and males even shaking hands at all, flirting, dating etc.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hh11 7y ago

Did you know that masturbating to porn causes hypofrontality (measurable brain damage to the frontal lobe). Watching violent films doesn't do that to you. https://www.covenanteyes.com/2014/02/28/hypofrontality/ https://www.covenanteyes.com/2014/02/28/hypofrontality/