Makalakumu Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 Hi Stef and FDR community I've been listening to FDR for a while and I've yet to hear an in depth discussion about human sexual relationships in a free society. This seems like it would be a great show topic that could be of great benefit to the community as a whole because humans are sexual beings and society seems like it is obsessed with controlling sexual relationships. There are two books I'd like to recommend on the subject. Both of these authors would be great interview subjects for shows. The first is Sex at Dawn, by Dr. Christopher Ryan. http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/0061707813 In this book, Dr. Ryan uses the methodology of evolutionary psychology to understand human sexual relationships, drawing on the most current brain science and biologic relationships to describe how the human brain has evolved in regards to human sexual relationships. He also traces the history of how religious and government insitutions have sought to control these relationships for their own benefit and he discusses how this has shaped our modern ideas about sexual relationships. The second is The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen by Dr. Robert Epstein. http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Adolescence-Rediscovering-Adult/dp/188495670X In this case, Dr. Epstein presents the studies, statistics, and brain science that shows how our entire conception of adolesence is artificial. Dr. Epstein makes the case that teens are infantalized adults in western culture and he shows how this notion has been damaging to the development of teens and to society as a whole. Dr. Epstein devotes several chapters to teen sexual relationships and makes the case that the dysfunction we see in this area is entirely the result of institutional societal coercion. As an aside, I recommend this book for anyone who is going to raise a teenager or currently is raising a teenager. I think that this material makes a general case for self ownership for teenagers it also supports the tenents of peaceful parenting through the teen years. I think this book gives enough data and rational explanation to make the case for increasing liberty for teens and is important for people in this community to read in general. I certainly learned a lot about myself by reading Dr. Epstein's book. It helped me understand why I felt the way I did as a teen in certain situations. I believe that Dr. Epstein has penned a tome that supports everything that libertarians have been saying about teens for years and it provides the scientific underpinning to help support those ideas. Back to the topic at hand. After reading these two books and thinking about how sexual relationships would look if the Non-Aggression Principle and Self-Ownership were universalized throughout society, I believe that we can arrive at some surprising conclusions regarding sexual relationships in a free society. I also think that these conclusions apply to how family structures in free society would look. The conclusions I'm going to write below are heavily informed by the books I recommended above. 1. In a free society, the Nuclear Family unit that we are used to in our culture is probably going to be far less common. The human brain has evolved to form small cooperative groups where children are raised cooperatively by many adults. As the child gets older and approaches puberty, all of these adults inform the child through modeling about how adults should act. Thus, I think the family structure in a free society will resemble many polyamorous relationships where responsibility, finances, and romantic love is shared in smaller cooperative communities. 2. In a free society, children will become adults much earlier than they do now. A free society would not spend the inordinate amount of time infantalizing youth forcing them to remain like children with less personal responsibility. This will result in the child growing up with a great sense of purpose and responsibility, allowing the child to assume the role of adult much faster than they do in modern society. 3. In a free society, the subject of sex will be more openly discussed and it will result in a higher level of sexual knowledge for adults and children. 4. In a free society, the sexual behavior of teens will be better understood and even encouraged. The greater knowledge of sex among society as a whole will create entirely new social rules about sexual behavior for younger humans. Masturbation, mutual masturbation, and oral sex will be considered acceptable forms early human sexual activity. Coitus will be behavior that will be encouraged by the community after the individuals have shown that they are responsible enough to raise any possible children. 5. In a free society, people will have babies at younger ages. Teens will have more responsibility and have more economically viable skills, allowing them to start families earlier. There will be much more community support for the raising of children so mistakes and/or immaturity will result in far less social disfunction. Thus, early pregnacies will be far less damaging to teens than they are now. This will also reduce the amount of birth defects and mental retardation because the overall quality of sex cells has had less time to degrade with age. 6. In a free society, women would probably not have children with people their same age. This is because fatherhood will be postponed until a greater level of economic utility has been acheived by the man. 7. In a free society, there will be less sexual deviance. Violence and coercion will be less common in relationships in general and thus leading to a decrease in the amount of rape. There would be less fetishes because young people would be more exposed to healthy sexual models and they would not imprint on physical objects. There would also be less bondage, S&M, and porn because the same reasons. 8. In a free society, the distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality will be less defined. Two people of the same sex would be allowed to relieve their sexual needs and form close relationships and this would strengthen the community. 9. In a free society, promiscuous sexual behavior, aka one night stands with strangers, will be discouraged. The community will exert pressure on individuals to know their sexual partners well in order to cut down the spreading of sexual diseases and to handle any potential children that might come from the relationship. 10. In a free society, paternity will be much less important. Males will be allowed to act as fathers to children they bond with within their communities whether they are directly related or not. It is very possible that children will have several names for different kinds of fathers. Anyway, I think that's enough for now. Let me know what you think. Add some more insight if you want. @Stef, I think this would be a great podcast series and a wonderful topic to discuss. I think it's often assumed that modern family is a natural structure and not a creature of government/religious institutions and this informs many of the discussions regarding parenting. There are a lot of assumptions in the idea of the family unit that are challenged by the work presented above.
Makalakumu Posted February 20, 2013 Author Posted February 20, 2013 I'm listening to Christopher Ryan's Podcast, one of the authors I noted above, and he has a guest, Eric Berkowitz, who wrote a book called Sex and Punishment. In it, he traces the laws that govern sex throughout society over the last 4000 years. What becomes apparent to me is that government are intensely interested in sex and controlling human desires. As long as rulers have been able to write their laws down, they have recorded laws regarding sex! Here is a link to an interview by Mr. Berkowitz. http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/02/06/sex-and-punishment-eric-berkowitz-talks "Our sex organs were kind of like hands or feet, they were obedient," says Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment: Four Thousand Years of Judging Desire. "After we ate the apple and did what we did, the sex organs to Augustine became like little dictators that we have to either succumb to or overpower." ReasonTV's Tracy Oppenheimer sat down with Berkowitz to discuss original sin, trends in sex laws, and societies' perceptions of sexual transgressions."
Makalakumu Posted March 2, 2013 Author Posted March 2, 2013 Stef just had an interesting talk during the last Sunday show with a young man who was struggling with interacting with women. It's interesting how his upbrininging when it came to sex helped to shatter his confidence. Dr. Ryan notes that the longer it takes a man to have his first sexual encounter, the more likely it is for the man to have problems relating to women. When it comes to something so fundamental to the human experience, I think the subject of the history and philosophy of sex is definitely important to discuss. Dr. Ryan would be a great podcast guest.
TheRobin Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 Stef just had an interesting talk during the last Sunday show with a young man who was struggling with interacting with women. It's interesting how his upbrininging when it came to sex helped to shatter his confidence. Dr. Ryan notes that the longer it takes a man to have his first sexual encounter, the more likely it is for the man to have problems relating to women. When it comes to something so fundamental to the human experience, I think the subject of the history and philosophy of sex is definitely important to discuss. Dr. Ryan would be a great podcast guest. Not sure how that (the sentences I marked) was itnended, but there's certainly an (almost obvious, imo) causality between not being able to relate to women and not having sex that early. The way it's phrased there makes it either seem reversed or simply a statement of correlation. Could you explain further how this was meant?
Rick Horton Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 I listened to the show he did with Adam, recently, when he talks about choosing women, or trying to find them. It's definitely a sausage festival in the anarchist "community". Most likely, it seems to me to be because a lot of the anarchists are activist in nature, and activists are, meh, hard to deal with in any sect of society. I find it best in my own relationship with my girlfriend to act according to my principals, and let her do her own thing. I don't think my way is inherently better than any other person's philosophy. Hell. What do I know, right. A lot of the anarchist principals resonate with me, but hardly all of them. One, is that I don't preach my beliefs anymore, or try and change the affairs of the world. I just facilitate my own reality, and since my girlfriend is of very high value to me I don't disrespect her views although they differe HUGELY from mine.
Magenta Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 since my girlfriend is of very high value to me I don't disrespect her views although they differe HUGELY from mine. In what ways do your girlfriend's views differ from yours?
Rick Horton Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 since my girlfriend is of very high value to me I don't disrespect her views although they differe HUGELY from mine. In what ways do your girlfriend's views differ from yours? My girlfriend is a strict Vegan, and politically and philosophically she leans left.
Makalakumu Posted March 3, 2013 Author Posted March 3, 2013 Stef just had an interesting talk during the last Sunday show with a young man who was struggling with interacting with women. It's interesting how his upbrininging when it came to sex helped to shatter his confidence. Dr. Ryan notes that the longer it takes a man to have his first sexual encounter, the more likely it is for the man to have problems relating to women. When it comes to something so fundamental to the human experience, I think the subject of the history and philosophy of sex is definitely important to discuss. Dr. Ryan would be a great podcast guest. Not sure how that (the sentences I marked) was itnended, but there's certainly an (almost obvious, imo) causality between not being able to relate to women and not having sex that early. The way it's phrased there makes it either seem reversed or simply a statement of correlation. Could you explain further how this was meant? I'm probably not paraphrasing well, but I think what he's saying is that when a man delays having sexual experiences, there seems to be a related rise in problems relating to women. The way he explains it is that the drive is so strong and the delays feel like failure and this results in a crisis of confidence. This resonated with me because it fit my experience as a teen. I wonder if he would say this also translated into a decreased capacity for intimacy?
Makalakumu Posted March 3, 2013 Author Posted March 3, 2013 I listened to the show he did with Adam, recently, when he talks about choosing women, or trying to find them. It's definitely a sausage festival in the anarchist "community". Most likely, it seems to me to be because a lot of the anarchists are activist in nature, and activists are, meh, hard to deal with in any sect of society. I find it best in my own relationship with my girlfriend to act according to my principals, and let her do her own thing. I don't think my way is inherently better than any other person's philosophy. Hell. What do I know, right. A lot of the anarchist principals resonate with me, but hardly all of them. One, is that I don't preach my beliefs anymore, or try and change the affairs of the world. I just facilitate my own reality, and since my girlfriend is of very high value to me I don't disrespect her views although they differe HUGELY from mine. That show is interesting and I think it touches on the subject, how would an anarchist view sexual/romantic relationships? How much has the bias of a sexually authoritarian past influenced what we do now? How can libertarians use their philosophy in regards to sex and be more happy? Lastly, I wonder why the state is so obsessed with sex? It seems so trivial when we consider money property and war, but throughout history, societies have had strict laws that used the death penalty to control sexual behavior. It's probably one of the more irrational things that authoritarians do.
Loonie Posted March 4, 2013 Posted March 4, 2013 Lastly, I wonder why the state is so obsessed with sex? It seems so trivial when we consider money property and war, but throughout history, societies have had strict laws that used the death penalty to control sexual behavior. It's probably one of the more irrational things that authoritarians do. Thank you for starting this thread, Makalakumu, I have had similar questions about sexual relationships in a truly free society. I found Sex at Dawn to be a great book making the case for liberty in this area, and look forward to reading Dr. Epstein's book as well. As to sexual behavior and the state, it does not seem to me to be irrational for those in power to take control of the second (and some say the first) most powerful drive we have and use it to control us. (This aside from the fact that it is irrational to seek that kind of power in the first place.) To have to look to the state for permission to express oneself sexually and to fear punishment for transgressing against arbitrary 'laws' puts us in a place of subservience and powerlessness, less of a threat and the indoctrination keeps the slave-on-slave violence going as well.
Makalakumu Posted March 4, 2013 Author Posted March 4, 2013 Lastly, I wonder why the state is so obsessed with sex? It seems so trivial when we consider money property and war, but throughout history, societies have had strict laws that used the death penalty to control sexual behavior. It's probably one of the more irrational things that authoritarians do. Thank you for starting this thread, Makalakumu, I have had similar questions about sexual relationships in a truly free society. I found Sex at Dawn to be a great book making the case for liberty in this area, and look forward to reading Dr. Epstein's book as well. As to sexual behavior and the state, it does not seem to me to be irrational for those in power to take control of the second (and some say the first) most powerful drive we have and use it to control us. (This aside from the fact that it is irrational to seek that kind of power in the first place.) To have to look to the state for permission to express oneself sexually and to fear punishment for transgressing against arbitrary 'laws' puts us in a place of subservience and powerlessness, less of a threat and the indoctrination keeps the slave-on-slave violence going as well. Do you think this is a concious calculation by power or is this a convenient side effect of irrational thoughts regarding sex? I wonder if the people in power actually think about controlling sex in order to control people, or do they make ideological excuses with faulty reasoning and actually believe it?
Loonie Posted March 5, 2013 Posted March 5, 2013 Do you think this is a concious calculation by power or is this a convenient side effect of irrational thoughts regarding sex? I wonder if the people in power actually think about controlling sex in order to control people, or do they make ideological excuses with faulty reasoning and actually believe it? I suspect for many it could be the latter. I'm sure that most people lower in the hierarchy have this view, I'm less forgiving of those at the top who can see the bigger picture.
Makalakumu Posted December 18, 2013 Author Posted December 18, 2013 I wanted to bump this thread up for discussion, especially after listening to the last Sunday Show. Stef was talking about human sexual relations and mentioned wanting to do a series on the subject. I think there are some great resources here in the initial post of my thread and I wanted to share them again. That said, I'm fascinated by the whole Paul Walker debate that seems to be happening on Social Media. I wish I had the time to call in and ask a few questions. Here are a couple of points that utilize the sources above and the research that is gathered within them. 1. Stef has repeatedly stated that people do not reach emotional maturity until their mid 20s. I have seen a paper on this that looked at our culture and found that this was the case. However, according to Dr. Epstein, when sociologists study the matter cross culturally, in cultures that do not infantalize their youth through modern/western schooling techniques, children reach emotional maturity far faster. Children are capable of reaching emotional maturity very close to puberty. In my own experience with teens in our society, I am a high school teacher, I have noticed that many children resist the infantalization of society and reach emotional maturity far earlier than 25. 2. Stef has also repeated stated that social mores around which age people start pair bonding have traditionally limited relationships to people close to the same age. This is also contradicted by research collected by Dr. Ryan and Dr. Epstein. They have found that is was actually very common for men who were older to marry women who were younger because they had the ability to support the children and the family they would be raising with this person. Typical age differences were 10 to 15 years in the past. Anyway, there is a lot more and I'm short on time. With Aloha...
Recommended Posts