BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Head Shop >

Fucking

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Lurid Archive
09:32 / 26.08.04
Deva. I'm not sure I should really be the spokesperson for Ev Psych, since what I'm saying just comes from reading fairly popular texts (Pinker and Dawkins and lots of New Scientist, mainly). And I'm fairly sceptical myself, though the arguments used tend to have more sophistication than you might think.

So, for instance, Pinker would argue that men and women have different reactions to offers of sex as a consequence of some game theoretic strategies for reproduction and child rearing costs. I suspect he would apply this to men and women regardless of sexual orientation, because the evolutionary pressure is at quite a distance from the individual.

I'm not aware of any special definitions of sex. Are you concerned that different sexual orientations are excluded from the start? I don't think that happens, for exactly the reasons outlined above.

I think that Haus suggestion is right and that Paleface question,

how advanced does a species (I hope that's the right word) have to be before it starts contemplating sex-for-purposes-other-than-reproductive - ie recreational sex, non-vanilla (see other threads on this topic) sex, homo- and poly- sexual relationships, etcetera?

surely has an obvious answer, "not very". Well, as long as you think of Bonobos as not very advanced (which I think is right, in the context of the question).
 
 
Cat Chant
10:03 / 26.08.04
Hmm. Okay. I think my problem is this: I get the idea that from an evolutionary point of view, the purpose (or at least one purpose) of sex is reproduction. But I don't see that that necessarily means that the amount and type of non-reproductive sex that a species has is a sign of how advanced it is, evolutionarily. So "How advanced does a species need to be before it starts having non-reproductive sex?" seems to me to be making a huge narrative assumption that has no basis in what I understand to be the observable facts - that is, that less-evolved sexually dimorphous species only have reproductive-type sex, and more-evolved ones 'add on' recreational sex. My understanding is that seagulls, whales, sheep, dogs, primates, and a load of other examples I forget all have non-reproductive sex; I'm not sure how far 'down' the evolutionary ladder that goes, or even whether there is an evolutionary 'ladder' with a single direction of advancement (that's partly ignorance of current evolutionary genetics/psychology theories, and partly Cultural-Studies mistrust of linear narratives).

What I mean is, that the theoretical or evolutionary basis of sex does not translate into a narrative sequence of events - reproduction is the basis of the sex drive in (some) animals, maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the origin of sexual behaviours which become more complicated and less directly related to reproduction the more 'advanced' or 'evolved' a species becomes. The historical narrative might not correspond to the theoretical model.

I'm not so worried about sexual orientations being excluded from the start, because I'm not sure how meaningful a term that is for non-human species; what I'm worried about is on what basis observable behaviours are being defined as sexual or non-sexual, since a lot of animal species stimulate their own or others' genitals in ways that will not result in pregnancy - and, further along the scale, as Ex points out, there is grooming (non-genital physical contact). So the only way you can say that lesser-evolved animals only have reproductive sex is if you only define reproductive acts as 'sex', which is the tautology I was worried about earlier.
 
 
alas
14:30 / 27.08.04
It seems to me that part of the concern is the way the models that emphasize reproduction as the primary goal of sex traditionally seem, unconsciously, based on (and reinscriptive of) individualism as an ideological frame. Not insofar as the arguments can't be framed in terms of evolutionary pressures that are species wide and far from any individual action, but in terms of understanding how individuals survive to the point where they can reproduce and how they survive after having reproduced.

Feminists tend to be skeptical of the reproductive-focus for a variety of reasons, but one important one is the erasure of the work that women typically do in our cultural discourse. So I would emphasize that human survival _only_ occurs in social contexts. You cannot survive to reproductive age without a strong, nurturing social network doing a lot of work to get you to that point. Without nurturing, anything recognizable as human cannot survive.

Sexuality, it strikes me, is at least as much about creating and maintaining these social bonds as it is about reproduction. I resist biological models for that reason: the humans I see are not actively fucking for fun so much as vulnerable. They know that without other people they will die, so when they are healthy they find lots of means of forming tight bonds with others who will stick by them when they are old or ugly or puking and shitting uncontrollably.

So I'd be interested to know more about how and to what degree EP accounts for this aspect of our sexual-social existence.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:30 / 27.08.04
But I don't see that that necessarily means that the amount and type of non-reproductive sex that a species has is a sign of how advanced it is, evolutionarily.

I agree, more or less. The only qualification is that non-reproductve sex is social (always? hmmm), and social behaviour and interactions are *a* measure of advancement. Not the only one, obviously, and right off the scale if we are talking about humans.

reproduction is the basis of the sex drive in (some) animals, maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the origin of sexual behaviours which become more complicated and less directly related to reproduction the more 'advanced' or 'evolved' a species becomes.

Again, I agree. EP would argue (I think) that the reproductive function has interesting implications for the role of sex in our lives, but we aren't motivated to have sex for reproductive reasons on the whole. Rather, our biology and psychology provides motivations of various and inexact kinds leading to various sexual behaviours, and these can interact with a whole variety of other factors and drives. For instance, sex serves can function as a societal bond, define hierarchies and status as well as existing as a commodity.


what I'm worried about is on what basis observable behaviours are being defined as sexual or non-sexual, since a lot of animal species stimulate their own or others' genitals in ways that will not result in pregnancy...So the only way you can say that lesser-evolved animals only have reproductive sex is if you only define reproductive acts as 'sex', which is the tautology I was worried about earlier.

I'm not sure what the precise definition of sex used in EP would be, btw, but genital stimulation would count, I think. And lots of animals other than humans have non-reproductive sex, as people have pointed out. I don't think the examples above are in any way controversial, and I doubt very much that a biologist would claim that non-human animals only have reproductive sex. However, for some animals you might argue that they don't have sex at all and only reproduce. I think we may be indulging in the fallacy of evolutionary progress, no?

It seems to me that part of the concern is the way the models that emphasize reproduction as the primary goal of sex traditionally seem, unconsciously, based on (and reinscriptive of) individualism as an ideological frame. - alas

I think that is certainly true, but tends to invoke rather outdated sterotypes. I suspect one of the reasons that so many people are aware of the diverse sexual behaviours of animals is precisely because this stereotype is no longer valid.

So I would emphasize that human survival _only_ occurs in social contexts.

Absolutely. Well, for humans at least. And lots of other amimals too. But this isn't the sort of thing that EP ignores. On the contrary, there are hundreds of just so stories and game theoretic analyses to explain human interactions. As I said, while I am fairly sceptical of EP, it is also far more sophisticated than you might think.

Sexuality, it strikes me, is at least as much about creating and maintaining these social bonds as it is about reproduction.

Yes, it is. And again, EP wouldn't disagree. It would just make certain distinctions that you are not making. Namely, between personal and social drives and the effect of evolutionary pressures.
 
 
Cat Chant
16:39 / 27.08.04
I think we may be indulging in the fallacy of evolutionary progress, no?

I hope not, but I'm aware that my vocabulary and my conceptual 'toolkit' for doing anything evolution- or biology-related are very limited, so it's hard for me to be precise about what I mean, because I'm using ill-defined and vague words and concepts and I'm never sure when I'm muddling up 'pop-evolution' (the 'ladder of evolution' I referred to - you know, amoeba-fish-lizard-bird-monkey-human) with actual, y'know, science (which I daresay doesn't believe in evolution-as-progress, but on the other hand what would I know), and blaming one for the faults of the other. I'm holding out till I finish my PhD and can start reading Gabriel Dover (you have to scroll down), who I saw at a conference having a fight with Stephen Pinker and who won my fannish little heart.

But this has little to do with fucking now. Sorry.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply