Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Government interest in your sex life.

01:42 / 13.11.01

The feeling I would expect to find is that the government has no right to tell me who I can sleep with and who I cannot.

So, I'll start off with a decent point from the other side. Cultures inclined to polygamy tend to be warring cultures. (Tell me if this is blatantly false) The reason for this is that a number of men are completely without women, and they don't have anything else to do but go fight in some other country (there are women there, for one thing).

Other thoughts? This isn't just a topic on polygamy, but that's the only real example I had.

02:03 / 13.11.01

Buh? maybe i'm reading wrong but are you trying to say the reson why men are out there fighting is becuse they don't have any women to sleep with?

04:58 / 13.11.01

"Pedophilia: Ain't Nunna Ya Bidniz, Unka Sam"

The Return Of Rothkoid

10:33 / 13.11.01

Mmm - more info would be kinda helpful. Aren't the Mormons polygamous? I wasn't aware of them being especially militant... then again, they may well have a military history of which I'm unaware...

17:51 / 13.11.01

There was a brief war between US forces and the Mormons, back in the poligamy days. My US history isn't clear enough to give you more specific details, though.

My personal experience has been that poligamy seems a popular lifestyle among neo-pagans, hippy revivalists, and the intellectual degenerate types I associate with. All for the same reasons of "dude, its all good. peace, love, etc" Not exactly your militant types, by and large.

At least, these are folks I know who practice it *sucessfully*. Lots of people try, and just make a mess of things. Everyone has to be very on the same page for it to come close to working out.

Of course, these are modern subcultures. I know little of the effects in anthropology of the past.

17:45 / 14.11.01

Probably should have timed this one better. I'll see what sources I can dig up when I find some more time.

Incidentally, Mormons are NOT polygamous these days. The early Mormon church was, and the U.S. government forced them, at gunpoint, to renounce it.

I'd heard some implications that, in fact, this practice was causing war or violence, but I can't back that up just yet.

19:27 / 17.11.01

quote:Originally posted by All-Loving SMatthewStolte:
Incidentally, Mormons are NOT polygamous these days. The early Mormon church was, and the U.S. government forced them, at gunpoint, to renounce it.

The offical stance is that Mormons are not polygamous, but that's what PR is for now isn't it? While most Mormons may not be multiply married these days, the old school Bible-thumping Moroni-loving bastards usually have an extra wife hanging about somewhere.

[ 17-11-2001: Message edited by: Abydoss ]

20:04 / 17.11.01

channelling hopping one night i turned on to a program on the Mormons.
Randy filled the screen with his mighty, hairy girth. a wider shot included his 4 stepford wives. when asked how they thought their marriage differed from more conventional ones one of Randy's women said 'well, at least we dont have to cook every night...'

18:22 / 19.11.01

In the South Pacific, one of the most peaceful cultures ever known was polygamous, I think.

They compared yams instead of having wars (although the competitions did occasionally lead to bloody feuds).

Here, I think these are they.

19:21 / 19.11.01

quote:Originally posted by Abydoss:
The offical stance is that Mormons are not polygamous, but that's what PR is for now isn't it?

Their official stance currently is also that there are not people living on the sun and moon. There have been a lot of revisions in Morman dogma over the years.

*searches desparately for somethig positive to say*

At least they keep with the times?

19:33 / 19.11.01

Perhaps instead of polygamy leading to 'rogue males' leading to war, one might consider that polygamy would be a social solution to keep on breeding during times when the breeding male population was low... due to war? or too much oestregen in the water? or most of 'em off shagging each other? You Decide!

01:02 / 20.11.01

Certainly is possible.

Well, if my friend doesn't write me back and remind me where that info came from, I won't be able to back up the example.

So, is there ANY reason for a state to have laws about your sex life? Most states in history have, and it doesn't seem to me like JUST some kind of need to control you in general, though there certainly is that.

Regrettable Juvenilia

07:41 / 20.11.01

The most recent example of the government taking an unhealthy interest in the sex lives of its citizens/subjects, that springs to my mind, is the idea of "family values"... This was particularly prominent in British politics in the early 1990s, when the Tories kept banging on and on about it. As ever, the key here was what wasn't said: "promoting family values" sounds all nice and cosy and positive, and who could have a problem with that? But what it was really all about - and continues to be about - was not only demonizing homosexuality and providing a mandate for actively discriminating policies like Clause 28, but also to reinforce the idea that there is a specific structure that one must fit into in order to be a useful and valid part of 'society'. The family in this sense at least functions as a unit of social control: it's one of the building blocks in a very hierarchical system. (The British concept of society, and national identity, seems to rely very much on finding one's place within an order and slotting seamlessly into it - quite different from the American model, for example, as far as I can tell.)

So, ah, where was I going with this? Apart from: fuck 'family values'. With a big stick.

P.S. SMatthew:

quote:Cultures inclined to polygamy tend to be warring cultures. (Tell me if this is blatantly false) The reason for this is that a number of men are completely without women, and they don't have anything else to do but go fight in some other country (there are women there, for one thing).

This is all Blatantly False.

[ 20-11-2001: Message edited by: Flyboy ]

08:08 / 20.11.01

side note-- the Tory obsession with 'family values' lead to numerous Tory cabinet ministers having to resign after admitting (or being forced to admit) to extra marital affairs.

10:02 / 20.11.01

well if i'm not getting any sex i tend to masturbate rather than go out and kill people.

so, no. the govt is not happy about me being a dyke, not happy about me being into sm. and when i get a sex life, i will not appreciate any interference from anyone.

10:16 / 25.11.01

What about the Spartans?
Disciplined Warriors living in their own city state, Highly organised encoraged Homosexuality.
Or am I wrong?

14:08 / 25.11.01

I have never heard any indication that a culture encouraging homosexuality would be more inclined to violence. I would think it would be somewhat opposite, since it would reduce reproduction and help keep resources.

14:50 / 25.11.01

quote:Originally posted by Blue-Stocking:
Randy filled the screen with his mighty, hairy girth. a wider shot included his 4 stepford wives. when asked how they thought their marriage differed from more conventional ones one of Randy's women said 'well, at least we dont have to cook every night...'

I'll thank you to take that back.

15:49 / 25.11.01

I'm suprised that some people have the impression that polygamy = one husband, many wives. It could be any way round. One wife = many husbands. One wife = many wives. One husband =many husbands.

16:30 / 25.11.01

eeeh, Randy, you mean you don't have a massive hairy girth and 4 wives then?

20:17 / 25.11.01

quote:Originally posted by Lionheart:
I'm suprised that some people have the impression that polygamy = one husband, many wives. It could be any way round. One wife = many husbands. One wife = many wives. One husband =many husbands.

I have (had?) that impression, since there is a word for one wife=many husbands. That's polyandry.

But polyandry is potentially a part of the discussion as well. And so are the forms of homosexual marriage if you like. But we'll probably have to clear up our terms.

20:32 / 25.11.01

quote: I have never heard any indication that a culture encouraging homosexuality would be more inclined to violence. I would think it would be somewhat opposite, since it would reduce reproduction and help keep resources.

Isn't this based on the fallacy - and if it's not a fallacy, certainly the unjustfied assumption - that the level of violence in a society is based on a rational assessment of the level of resources, and likely results of dominant sexual ethics and reproductive practices?

Anyway, a homosexual culture wouldn't conserve resources, it would rapidly use them up manufacturing Madonna records and leather chaps.

22:39 / 25.11.01

All-Loving SMatthew, can we broaden out the discussion from a focus on governments?

In his History of Sexuality, Foucault showed how the idea that sex must be policed - made subject to official policies - emerged during the Enlightenment. In a proliferation of discourses in the 19th and 20th centuries, sex came to be studied, known and shaped in ways considered amenable to society. The way in which we understand sex, and engage in it and other social activities, is regulated by institutions and discourses rather than governments.

Discourses and attitudes change within specific cultures over time. Would you be interested in discussing what, currently, is seen to constitute ethical behaviour in sex, and more generally, in family or social relations? For example, what are the dominant discourses in circulation about, say, masturbation, promiscuity, abstinence, children's sexuality, same sex relationships, intergenerational sex? To what extent have '19th century to mid 20th century' discourses been changed or begun to be changed by present practice? To what extent have previously prohibited or controlled practices become 'normal'?

22:40 / 25.11.01

Arrrgh. Sorry about this, Tom. I got a 'flood-control' message twice that told me to wait 'n try again - which is precisely what I did.
[ 26-11-2001: Message edited by: Cavatina ]

[ 26-11-2001: Message edited by: Cavatina ]

22:41 / 25.11.01

[ 26-11-2001: Message edited by: Cavatina ]

00:48 / 26.11.01

quote:Originally posted by Dread Pirate Crunchy:

Isn't this based on the fallacy - and if it's not a fallacy, certainly the unjustfied assumption - that the level of violence in a society is based on a rational assessment of the level of resources, and likely results of dominant sexual ethics and reproductive practices?

Anyway, a homosexual culture wouldn't conserve resources, it would rapidly use them up manufacturing Madonna records and leather chaps.

I was only guessing. One reason for war is often lack of resources. One reason for violence is lack of resources. One of the big contributions to losing resources is reproduction. It's plausible, but I have no evidence. And wars break out for myriad reasons, so no one contributing factor could be eliminated and eliminate war.

All-Loving SMatthew, can we broaden out the discussion from a focus on governments?

yes, please continue to do so.

nathanwi smurphe

04:51 / 26.11.01

Hey, bear with me, i've recently joined The Barbelith discussions, but on the topic of Gov't interest in one's sex life and its intersection with poly-gamy/-andry...

In Eve Cantarella's "Bisexuality in the Ancient World" she gives a prety comprehensive (and damning) account of Roman and Greek attitudes to multiple partners; Whil ROman men could sex anyone they wanted (except each other), ie their women, their slaves, their conquered peoples, this was more an extension of their war-like conquering approach to the world around them. As contrasted with the greeks who had a largely sex-segregated culture, with allegedly lots of same-sex relationships, between men (and some women) of the same class...
But in both cases these relationships were not exactly consensual since women were neither liberated nor free.

Another example of common poly-andry would be pre-invasion Tibet, but even here, while some households may have been matriarchal, society in general was dominated by the patriarchal monasteries...

I think in relating this back to the incursion of government you'd have to look what type of relationship the state favours and thus what type of power distribution is favoured. At present in most societies the western model of matrimony is fostered, which perpetuates an economic household unit reliant upon womyn's exploitation, to prop up male labour and child-rearing.

I would contend that only when relationships between individuals at the basic level of thier intimate relationships are democratic will attempts by government to control sex practises evaporate.

05:11 / 27.11.01

quote:... you'd have to look at what type of relationship the State favours. At present in most societies the western model of matrimony is fostered ...

But to what extent does/has this 'favouring' by the 'State' effectively control(led) behaviour? Isn't it the case that the more rules and regulations increase, the less possible it is for all aspects to be policed? And isn't it also true that the more people explore prohibited practices, the more those practices become 'normal'? These days many people reject the formalities of marriage; de facto relationships are treated as legal for income tax, social security etc. It is also far more common, than say twenty years or so ago, for people to be living together openly in same sex relationships and taking out mortgages to buy houses. Governments and institutions have responded to changes in social practices.

And so long as governments continue to exist, I suspect that such a pattern is likely to continue. What is considered acceptable or ethical is what fits the dominant world views and discourses in circulation at a particular period.