Having sex privately is assumed to be a common modesty, but is it?
Readership: All;
Length: 3,200 words
Reading Time: 12 minutes
Introduction
This post will (1) explore the question of why the privatization of sexual expression is peculiar to human nature, and (2) why some people, under certain social settings, do not feel the need to conceal mating. The following article is quoted.
Yitzchak Ben Mocha, “Why do human and non-human species conceal mating? The cooperation maintenance hypothesis“, The Royal Society, (2020 August 5) Alternate source.
Why do Humans Conceal Mating?
The author analyzed sexual practices in 249 cultures from 35 geographical regions by reviewing more than 4,572 ethnographies! Wowzers!
The first section of this paper covers systematic evidence for the wide prevalence of mating concealment across human cultures. He also reviews the phenomenon of concealed mating in non-human species. He takes an evolutionary perspective to review existent hypotheses for concealed mating in humans, and shows that they do not explain why concealed mating evolved as the norm in humans, and is only seldom exhibited by apes.
“In many cultures, living conditions prevent complete sexual privacy, while in others, sexual privacy is not rigorously kept. Nevertheless, pairs from virtually all cultures were reported to take measures to conceal (at least partly) their legitimate mating from the sensory perception of adult conspecifics.”
He mentions one exception, the Goajiro from Colombia, where pairs took no precautions to conceal legitimate mating.
“Despite the extraordinary cultural diversity that has evolved in the human species, humans from distinct cultures have been reported to take active precautions to conceal sexual intercourse from the sensory perception of others. During the last century, scholars argued that the preference for concealed mating represents a ‘human universal’ and is also uniquely human. Others speculated this had a significant effect on the evolution of human emotions (e.g. shame) and cognitive skills (e.g. self-awareness, managing social relationships).”
Get this… Concealed mating is only characteristic among humans, and out of millions of species, only one type of bird (the Arabian Babbler) has been found to exhibit this same behavior. Similar to the habit of wearing clothes, it seems like a trait conjoined with something else unique to humans — sin. I’ll come back to this connection later.
Hypotheses on the Function of Concealed Mating in Humans
“To date, only brief explanations have been suggested for the function of concealed mating (e.g. a few sentences or a footnote). […] the first explanation was proposed in 1930 by Malinowski, who argued that public mating ‘excites jealousy. Hence to make love or to eat in public is to invite rivals to seize that which is being enjoyed’.”
So by extension, the concealment of mating serves to avert envy and jealousy which invariably disturbs the peace and upsets the social order. Women prefer a peaceful society filled with mini-dramas of their own creation.
“Half a century later, Symons repeated a similar argument: ‘Ultimately, [concealed mating] probably is the outcome of reproductive competition. Where food is scarce, and the sight of people eating produces envy in the unfed, eating is often conducted in private. While there are many societies in which everyone has enough to eat, there are no societies in which everyone can copulate with all the partners he or she desires […] The seeking of privacy for sex probably has been uniformly adaptive and hence is virtually universal among humans’.”
In other words, Symons’ theory recognizes that there is a subset of humans suffering from sex scarcity. Presumably, it has always been true that some men and women cannot obtain an ideal pairing. Within the past few decades, this sex drought has increased dramatically for a significant proportion of men. This motivates socially unacceptable pairings and the need for secrecy.
“Building on this interaction between jealousy and reproductive competition, Friedl posited the costly consequence of reproductive competition: ‘the value of hidden sex [is] to protect [the copulating pair] and the social group from the dangers of jealousy caused by competition […] for mates, [as] a degree of social harmony is a prerequisite for an individual animal’s reproductive success’.”
We see this all the time. Let’s take the church as a pertinent example. There is a lot of sexual promiscuity happening within the church, especially among younger singles, and it is assiduously kept secret as much as possible. But if it ever becomes known that a younger woman (or three) was hopping on a young alpha, or that a man in the congregation was shinnying around with another man’s wife, then a scandal will invariably erupt. The scandal will polarize the social atmosphere of the church, and inevitably require one or both of the offenders to leave the church. This throws a monkey wrench into the grander scheme of procreation, since all this drama would interfere with the continuance of the affair. So it is easy to see why everyone wants the whole thing to be kept secret — because the exploration of mating possibilities is tacitly taken to be much more important than preserving sexual purity and maintaining social harmony within the congregation.
On the other hand, NOT keeping it secret is just as destructive, if not more so. Just imagine a scenario in which it became the custom of making all the illicit sexual liaisons within the church a matter of public knowledge, and it was also expected that everyone should forgive and accept the offenders. Then eventually, everyone would come to view the congregation as a de facto swingers’ club, and the church would mutate into the same. Even if the need for repentance is emphasized and required, the die would already be cast.
In either case, as you can see, the problem of how to deal with sexual immorality within the church is a conundrum, but the easiest way to deal with it is simply to deny it. This is why pastors and elders refuse to discuss or deal with such matters until it blows up in their face. We can also see why it is not uncommon for people who become privy to the prevalence of sexual immorality within the church to leave, either to escape the influence of promiscuity, or to engage in promiscuity more freely and without the risk of expose and consequent damage to the church fellowship.
“Similarly, van Schaik recently hypothesized that ‘the benefit for the man is that it prevents overt contest competition for access to potentially fertile mates, which would threaten male–male cooperation’.”
In common language, if beta Billy was fully aware of how his buddy, alpha Axel was using him to meet and F all his girlfriends, then Billy and Axel would not be friends any longer. Since it is advantageous for both men to remain friends, Axel must do his clam digging on the underground railroad.
“These explanations share the view that avoiding overt reproductive competition is the main function of concealed mating in humans, while differing in the importance ascribed to cooperation. Malinowski and Symons neglect the importance of cooperation altogether, Friedl invokes the cost of reproductive competition on ‘social harmony’, and van Schaik points out the importance of male–male cooperation.”
Although all of the above explanations may be true, it does not explain why this whole paradigm is almost totally unique to humans. As the author says,
“However, if these hypotheses were true, I would expect to find habitual concealment of matings in many other social species. Specifically, I would expect to find concealed matings in our phylogenetically closest living relatives, the social non-human great apes (bonobos Pan paniscus, chimpanzees Pan troglodytes and mountain gorillas Gorilla beringei beringei). In these species, within-group reproductive competition is common, while social cohesion is crucial for between-group competition and, at least among chimpanzees, male–male cooperation is vital. Nevertheless, dominant individuals from these species seldom conceal matings from the view of conspecifics…”
The author discusses the example of primate mating behavior to support his hypothesis, given the following section.
The Cooperation Maintenance Hypothesis
Ben Mocha presented the Cooperation Maintenance Hypothesis (CMH), which seemingly applies across species and cultures. The CMH is based on the following argument:
If:
- Sensory stimuli of mating between conspecifics evokes sexual arousal and trigger mating behaviour in witnesses (hereafter, the sexual arousal premise).
- X (a male and/or a female) tries to control mating access to his/her partner(s) (hereafter, the mating control premise).
- X depends on cooperation with group members that he/she prevents from mating with his/her partner(s) (hereafter, the cooperation dependency premise).
Then:
Public mating between X and his/her partner will evoke sexual arousal in group members (males and/or females). This, in turn, will increase the likelihood that aroused witnesses will attempt to initiate mating with X’s partner when possible (the sexual arousal premise). These attempts will violate X’s efforts to control mating access to his/her partner (the mating control premise) and will trigger social conflicts that will harm the cooperation between X and his/her group members (the cooperation dependency premise.
“By contrast, sensory concealment of X’s mating with his/her partner will not evoke sexual arousal in group members. Hence, the act of mating will not induce extra-pair mating with X’s partner and will not affect X’s cooperation with other group members. I therefore suggest that concealed mating by individuals whose mating is not subject to physical interruption by conspecifics is a relatively non-costly strategy for avoiding unnecessary sexual arousal in group members (proximate explanation). At the ultimate level, concealed mating allows an individual to maintain two needs that would otherwise conflict: mating control over his/her partner(s) and cooperation with those group members that are prevented from mating with these partner(s).”
The Cooperation Maintenance Hypothesis is illustrated in the following flowchart.
Ben Mocha offers further argumentative support for the CMH.
Thus, the CMH elaborates factors that were previously proposed to select for concealed mating—jealousy [2,6], reproductive competition [2,3,11] and social harmony/male–male cooperation [3,11]—and combines them as necessary premises of a coherent argument. According to the CMH, explanations that rely solely on avoiding reproductive competition [2,6] are not sufficient, since the question of concealed mating is only applied to individuals who do not expect interference from conspecifics (e.g. dominant individuals). In addition, in social systems without cooperation, dominant animals settle conflicts with aggression and often mate in public (e.g. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis Canadensis [30]). But where competitors also cooperate, aggression may eliminate future cooperation (for ethnographic examples in Yanomamö see [31]).
The CMH differs from previous explanations by requiring both a specific form of reproductive competition (i.e. attempting to prevent group members from mating with one’s partner) and reliance on cooperation between group members. It thereby highlights the need to manoeuvre between these conflicting motives as the crucial selective pressure.
The CMH further stands up to evolutionary critiques that previous explanations failed to address. Namely, it can explain why dominant individuals of non-human great apes seldom conceal mating: because they rarely monopolize a specific partner (bonobos and chimpanzees use other forms of reproductive competition, e.g. sperm competition [32]) or they do not depend on cooperation with subordinate group members (e.g. mountain gorillas)—at least not to the same extent as humans and Arabian babblers.”
The CMH Applied to Human Behavior
Concerning the sexual arousal premise,
“Visual [33] and auditory [34] stimuli of mating activate the reward system in the human brain and trigger mating behaviour in males and females via mirror neurons. For ethnographic examples, see the Goajiro [35] and Lesu [16].
Knowing that a desired group member has a legitimate mating tie with another person may also trigger jealousy (see the Muria for ethnographic examples [18]). Yet, the sensory stimulus of mating is another powerful trigger of sexual arousal that can be prevented by sensory concealment. The benefits of sensory concealment therefore do not rely on individuals being ignorant of the existence of mating ties between group members.”
Concerning the mating control premise,
“Various scholars have claimed that in virtually all cultures, husbands and/or wives try to control mating access to their spouse(s)—at least to a certain degree [1,2,9,36]. Three clarifications should be made regarding this claim. First, mating control should not be confused with monogamy. For instance, a man/woman may marry several wives/husbands and forbid them to have extramarital sex. Second, it has been argued that even in cultures where some extramarital sex is allowed (e.g. in cultures with ‘shared paternity’), husbands and/or wives are still entitled to restrict the trysts of their spouse(s) to specific individuals and/or limit extramarital sex to the greatest possible extent [9]. Third, this premise requires an attempt, not a success, to control mating access to X’s spouse(s). As adultery is evident across human societies [10], this emphasizes the importance of behavioural strategies to reduce its occurrence.
Although it has been claimed repeatedly that restrictive sexual norms are virtually universal, there is a dearth of supporting evidence (but see [1,9]). Hence, I analysed whether social norms in this study’s dataset entitle husbands and/or wives to at least some control over mating access to their spouse(s), or, in contrast, if both spouses are allowed to have unrestricted extramarital sex. I found social norms that entitle mating control over spouse(s) in 100% of cultures for which data were available (survey dataset: n = 210; SCCS/EA dataset: n = 145). Cultures had diverse norms of sexual control; for instance, norms that forbid both spouses to have extramarital sex (e.g. orthodox Jews [37]); cultures where wives are required to stay faithful to their husbands, but husbands are allowed to have extramarital sex (e.g. Malekula [38]); and cultures where husbands and/or wives are allowed to have extramarital sex, but only with specific partners (e.g. Huaorani [39]). I found no culture in which social norms entitle both husbands and wives unrestricted freedom to engage in extramarital sex. These norms suggest that in virtually all human societies, group members are prevented (sometimes or always) from mating with spouses of others.”
The cooperation dependency is taken as evident, as I discussed in the above commentary.
“In conclusion, visual and audile stimuli of human mating trigger sexual arousal and sexual behaviour in both male and female observers [33,34]; across cultures, husbands and/or wives attempt to control mating access to their spouse(s) [9]; humans live in social systems where fitness crucially depends on cooperation between group members [40,41]. I therefore suggest that the habitual concealment of legitimate mating in humans is a relatively non-costly behavioural strategy to prevent unnecessary sexual arousal in group members (proximate explanation). This simultaneously maintains control over mating access to their spouse(s) as well as cooperation with group members that are prevented from mating with their spouse(s) (ultimate explanations).”
Ben Mocha offers the following chart to predict the concealment of matings. The chart is based on the interaction between attempts to control mating access to partner(s) and dependency on cooperation. The mating behavior of dominant individuals in different social systems are given as follows.
Green = Dominant individuals do not conceal matings.
Yellow = Dominant individuals present a context-dependent concealment of matings
Red = Dominant individuals conceal matings habitually.
The CMH Applied to the Current SMP
According to Ben Mocha’s CMH, concealed mating is a behavioral mating strategy used (1) to maintain mating control over partner(s), (2) to prevent sexual arousal in witnesses, and (3) to maintain cooperation with group members. That is to say, people practice mating in private when…
- They want to maintain mating control over partner(s).
- They are concerned that witnesses might feel envy or jealousy.
- They do not want witnesses who may become emotionally or sexually aroused and possibly interfere with mating.
- There is a perceived risk that cooperation with group members might be lost.
If we look at this theory through a Red Pill lens, we find that maintaining the norm of keeping sexual relations hidden actually supports a matriarchal social order in which women are in full control of social interactions and mating opportunities.
Within such a social order, women are able to choose when and with whom to mate, whether it is socially acceptable or not. According to women’s hypergamous nature, they will naturally gravitate towards the alpha. But because there are relatively fewer alphas, this results in a mating glut (a scarcity of preferred men for women, and a scarcity of women for non-preferred men). This motivates promiscuity which must be kept covert for reasons described above. Those few men who are chosen by females for sex must tacitly agree to be complicit in the deceptive cover up. Men who try to buck against this system are punished by the withholding of sex by women. Chance observers choose to remain silent in order to maintain social cohesion, and thereby become accomplices.
Ben Mocha compares human mating activity to that of the animal kingdom using monkeys as a representative example. Cats (lions, tigers, leopards, etc.) would also fit the argument. Within the animal kingdom, this glut of hypergamy is recognized and accepted, but the control over social interactions and mating opportunities is not covertly handed over to the females of the species in exchange for social tranquility or sexual access, as is done among humans. Instead, alphas must constantly support and defend their territory and pool of mates, and if/when he cannot, then he is no longer an alpha, by definition.
If this scenario happened among humans, then the true alpha males would maintain their sexual dominance by attracting and keeping mates, and repelling competing males. If they cannot, then they lose their alpha status.
The Bible contains stories that describe public and/or unconcealed mating…
- As a display of dominance and/or social status, or to shame the woman’s husband/previous partner. Examples include Reuben sleeping with Jacob’s concubine (Genesis 35:22), and Absalom sleeping with King David’s wives (2nd Samuel 16:20-22).**
- As the joy of intimacy. Example of Isaac and Rebecca being seen by King Abimelech (Genesis 26:8).
As far as I know, all of the examples in the Bible illustrate it as disruptive to the social order.
Even today, this does happen with a very small number of men (e.g. drug lords, gang lords, mercenaries, pimps, soldiers, turd-world politicians, etc.). Furthermore (and if Hollywood is half way accurate), we know these men do have sex in somewhat public spaces (e.g. the corner office, pool side, rooftops, back alleys, nature preserves, etc.). However, this is not broadly accepted as the norm within the vast majority of the cultures of the world today.
Epilogue
Modern culture imposes very loose sexual norms. Yet public mating remains taboo. This may be surprising at first glance. But after studying this paper, we find it’s actually not surprising at all, because the concealment enables promiscuity and supports a gynocentric social order.
In sum, we see that the preference for private intercourse arises from sin in general. But this should be no surprise to anyone who has read Genesis 3:7.
* H/T: Sensuous Curmudgeon: Why do Humans have peculiar mating habits? (2020 August 6)
** The Bible also describes the taking of wives as a seal of political alliances. Examples include several kings, including David and Solomon.
Related
- Σ Frame: A Study of Open Relationships (2015 September 8)
- Σ Frame: What is the difference between Open Relationships (OR) and Friends With Benefits (FWB)? (2015 September 10)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
Females evolved for cuckholdry as a reproductive strategy. Females are (or at least can be absent higher civilization/religion) your reproductive enemy. As are other males.
As species go, humans are somewhere between tournament/dimorphic and pair-bonded/monomorphic BUT this intermediate strategy frequently involved(s) serial polyandry and/or cuckholdry by the female (or at least indeterminate but plausible paternity incentivizing male investment). What facts suggest this?
Concealed female estrus in humans (found in some higher primates also) and genetic studies showing a 17:1, female to male reproduction ratio in the early Neolithic with a 4/5:1 (global-average) ratio in more recent times!! Also, female attraction changes across the 28-days, with attraction shifting towards more masculine/handsome men around ovulation (see Prof. Martie Haselton of UCLA).
Humans are one of the few species where estrus is concealed. This is found in a few of the great apes where (surprise!, surprise!) cuckholdry, carefully timed serial polandry is too. The females (chimps, bonobos I can’t remember) will give beta males sexual access at non-fertile times in exchange for resources/gifts e.g. a bunch of bananas.
Momma’s baby, daddy’s maybe.
https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
LikeLiked by 3 people
I appreciate the great effort you went to, Jack, to lay out all of this scientific research comparing humans to others of God’s created beings. I do, but forgive me as I reveal my simplistic, fundamentalist roots here. Why do men (mankind) mate in secret, unlike most other creatures?
Well first of all, and most important of all, is that we are qualitatively different and distinct from other created beings:
Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. … Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.”
That alone is more than enough to explain the difference in our procreative practices compared to other created beings. They were not made in the image of God. But then, we see throughout the OT the distinction God makes between the access man is permitted when it comes to worship. I’m commenting off the top of my head here so I am open to being corrected. The high priest was only permitted behind the veil once per year and he was the only person permitted there. The holy of holies was a sacred, mysterious place. One significance of Christ’s incarnation and sacrifice is that we have access to pray without the intermediary of the priesthood. (Yeah, I know my Protestantism is showing again, but stay with me).
We read Ephesians and we are told the covenant between husband and wife is symbolic of a greater union, “This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:32). Again, a sacred and mysterious union. Of course the one flesh act is private! Why would it not be?!
One more Scripture verse:
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; (1 Thess. 4: 3-5).
Note the words used: Sanctification (set apart), honor (the opposite of laying everything out for all to see). I laughed at Chrissy Tiegen being included as an example of one who broadcasts her public sexual exploits because we’d all be hard pressed to find someone with a platform who is more vulgar and dishonorable in her comportment. Talk about a gold ring in a pig’s snout!
I’m done. I’m not completely against intellectualism, but I am leery of the picking of nits to the point that we forget that as even the most depraved of humans are image bearers. We’re not the same as chimps of lobsters, or any other created being. Romans 1 makes clear that there are certain realities baked into our DNA, if you will.
So we shut the door when we engage in intimacy because we know that we should. To the extent that we don’t, I would argue that it reveals we’ve been given over to a complete reprobation of being.
Lastly, I think that’s a different issue from why the church doesn’t address sexual immorality among it’s members, a subject very much worth exploring.
LikeLike
I appreciate the great effort you went to, Jack, to lay out all of this scientific research comparing humans to others of God’s created beings. I do, but forgive me as I reveal my simplistic, fundamentalist roots here. Why do men (mankind) mate in secret, unlike most other creatures?
Well first of all, and most important of all, is that we are qualitatively different and distinct from other created beings:
Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. … Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.”
That alone is more than enough to explain the difference in our procreative practices compared to other created beings. They were not made in the image of God. But then, we see throughout the OT the distinction God makes between the access man is permitted when it comes to worship. I’m commenting off the top of my head here so I am open to being corrected. The high priest was only permitted behind the veil once per year and he was the only person permitted there. The holy of holies was a sacred, mysterious place. One significance of Christ’s incarnation and sacrifice is that we have access to pray without the intermediary of the priesthood. (Yeah, I know my Protestantism is showing again, but stay with me).
We read Ephesians and we are told the covenant between husband and wife is symbolic of a greater union, “This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:32). Again, a sacred and mysterious union. Of course the one flesh act is private! Why would it not be?!
One more Scripture verse:
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; (1 Thess. 4: 3-5).
Note the words used: Sanctification (set apart), honor (the opposite of laying everything out for all to see). I laughed at Chrissy Tiegen being included as an example of one who broadcasts her public sexual exploits because we’d all be hard pressed to find someone with a platform who is more vulgar and dishonorable in her comportment. Talk about a gold ring in a pig’s snout!
Understand, I’m not completely against intellectualism, but I am leery of the picking of nits to the point that we forget that as even the most depraved of humans are Divine image bearers. We’re not the same as chimps or lobsters, or any other created being. Romans 1 makes clear that there are certain realities baked into our DNA, if you will.
So we shut the door when we engage in intimacy because we know that we should. To the extent that we don’t, I would argue that it reveals we’ve been given over to a complete reprobation of being.
Lastly, I think that’s a different issue from why the church doesn’t address sexual immorality among it’s members, a subject very much worth exploring.
LikeLike
IMO, there’s no shame in fundamentalism – I wish I could have a more fundamentalist faith.
We’re spirit and flesh. The flesh is subject to evolution (even if humans were exclusively descended from two fallen beings) which influences temptation to sin (not sin itself). Reason and will are powers of the soul, gifts from God that can help overcome temptation and sin (as can the sacraments in my understanding of the faith).
We (or at least I) seek to understand temptation of the flesh, not deny God’s grace (not putting words into your mouth). Anyway that’s my attempt at armchair theologian.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Contrary to popular red pill lore, temptation runs the gamut in terms of who is tempted and in what ways.
For some people (yes many. maybe even most), sexual temptation is a huge sin in myriad ways. But it’s not universal. For instance, SAM hasn’t looked at anything pornographic in nature since he was 15 years old. Hasn’t seen the logic in it, he says. And yeah, I totally believe my husband’s testimony in that regard. The temptation to kick the crap out of someone? He fights against that one at least quarterly, and that’s when he’s been intently focusing on walking in the Spirit.
For some people, it’s greed and covetousness and money. Others, envy and still others, fame and power, which is a big one now given the spirit of this age.
But the answer to all of these temptations is the same, ‘Walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh”.
As I read through this, and noted that even in the most remote cultures, human beings try to carve out some measure of privacy for sexual intimacy, it simply underscored for me that men are not like animals. We are made in the image of God, and at the end of the day, THAT is why when we engage in sexual intimacy, the thing by which we bond spiritually and create life, we treat it as something sacred, mysterious, and private.
It is as just Oscar said, just about everything men do has a spiritual component, whether we acknowledge it or not. Complexity is a virtue in so much as we humans confer great value on it (we love to esteem our ability to reason, myself included), but in reality, life at its essence, is simple.
It’s why Jesus boiled the law, the prophets, and the key to eternal life down to two commandments.
LikeLike
@ Elspeth
I struggle with the same things – sexual lust, and like SAM I have violent impulses to beat the crap out of people who bother me since I try hard to be good to people and not hurt them. I recognize others have different temptations in type and degree.
I accept your implicit (I think) criticism here and elsewhere that some of us focus too much on Darwinian just-so stories to the neglect of the gospel. My only excuse is it is of personal interest to me and I acknowledge the role of grace and developing command of the will (with the assistance of grace) to overcome sin. I find both the material and the spiritual sources of temptation to be an interesting topic. I think we understand the spiritual sources very well – it’s right there in the Bible.
I also didn’t do a very good job above but generally try to use more careful language describing “theories and hypotheses” rather than treating these things as absolute truth – evolutionary psychology is a controversial topic and these things, like social science phenomena beyond reporting mere observations, are notoriously hard to prove.
LikeLike
There is a spiritual dimension to pretty much everything, and I only say “pretty much” just in case there’s an exception out there of which I’m unaware. The spiritual dimension is almost always the most important dimension, and it’s almost always the one people (even Christians) ignore the most.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometimes when I’m working on my truck and I bang my knuckles on something my swearing reaches the transcendent
LikeLiked by 2 people
Obviously, I need to up my swearing game.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have to agree with Elspeth on this one..
I’m always taken back that when all is said and done with the scientific study/observation/reasoning/statistics/etc, everything ends up circling back to the truth revealed in the scriptures. I think it is actually quite a neat thing to observe, the effort that goes into scientifically working through a given subject (the nerd in me likes it!); however, when all is said and done, it’s back to the truth with a capital T, God’s Word, God’s design. Of course human beings mate in private, why, because we are 1) made in the image of God (not like the animals) as Elspeth pointed out in her post; and 2) we live in a fallen state and things work a certain way after the fall that God explains to us in His word, or at least alludes to it:
Genesis 3
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
LikeLike
Oh yeah, by the way. When Abimelech saw Isaac “showing endearment” to his wife Rebekah, they weren’t mating publicly. The text clearly says that Abimelech “looked through a window” This intimates that he was basically being a Peeping Tom of sorts, probably because he was already focused on Rebekah to begin with.
LikeLike
@ Scott:
Don’t you be making fun of me, sir!
I know you all are very science minded here, and I appreciate that, but at the end of the day, we’re a bunch of people who believe that a Virgin gave birth, that her Son took all of our sin onto Himself as He was nailed to a cross, was raised from the dead, and is coming again to take us back to Heaven with Him.
Most of us believe that the Bible lays bare many of the eternal truths heretofore hidden from mankind, as well as sound teaching for how we are to live our daily lives. Seeing as there is almost nothing more fundamental to the health and well being of the family, church, and society than sexual mores, and God created sex, then surely human sexual behavior represents something more transcendent than the copulation of Japanese Macaque?
This shouldn’t be a hard sell to other Christians. It’s not as fun as evopsych, and it takes the focus off the evil wimminz, but still..
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Elspeth,
The evopsych approach suggests men are evil too. No less so than women. It just tends to manifest in different ways. Men are incentivized to spreading their seed and to variety/novelty. Many men would beat another man to death for a piece of you-know-what. We’re a mix of good and evil, just like women.
There are “wimminz are evil/inferior” commenters/writers that are 100% Bible based in their arguments. Evopsych doesn’t speak to good and evil since science doesn’t. The Bible/Church does.
Since the fall, the Creation is deformed. All the creation. We are suggesting modern evidence for this even though we would still take it on faith. Is it any different from a young earth creationist citing modern scientific evidence for literal Genesis?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since the fall, the Creation is deformed. All the creation.
Right.
I think this is where the conversations tend to get derailed.
It’s basically the difference between “is” and “ought”. The “is” represents fallen creation — our born nature, what Protestants tend to call “sin nature” — the fallen state. That is the “is” of humanity — it’s fallen, it’s base, it’s visceral and it’s rather animal. The Imago Dei is still there but it’s very obscured, and the patterns of life and behavior are not patterned after the divine plan, but after baser human instincts and desires which are more animal. The “reason” for this is spiritual, of course — it’s the fall, which was a spiritual event that had physical consequences. But the lived experience of humanity in its fallen/”sin nature” state is largely animal, and largely based on similar patterns as we see in the animal world — it’s what humans devolve to after the fall, when the Imago Dei is not erased but it’s mostly obscured.
The “should” is what regenerated Christians are supposed to be doing, now that they are no longer living in their sin natures, and are alive in Christ. This represents the divine plan for human behavior, as fully reflecting the Imago Dei as intended in humans, and it isn’t based on animal desires, but rather subjects those animal desires to spiritual priorities.
The problem arises because we live in an age that prioritizes, in an absolute sense, what is “natural”. What is “natural” is seen as, ipso facto, “good”, precisely because it is natural — its naturalness is what evidences its goodness in and of itself. Leaving aside how illogical and bizarre this is, conceptually, it has to be admitted that it is a widespread belief in our culture, and it has an impact on how people view moral questions as well because what is “natural” is “in-born”, and what is “in-born” is therefore not “chosen”, and what is therefore not “chosen” shouldn’t, in the eyes of many, be subject to moral sanction, because it is “natural”. We have all seen this trotted out about all of the sexual issues, both heterosexual and otherwise.
As a result of all of this, many Christians are fairly uncomfortable acknowledging that the fallen/”sin-nature” behavior is “natural”, because this means, to the broader non-Christian culture (and, honestly, to many Christians as well) that the behavior in question is “as designed”, even though Christian anthropology teaches nothing of the sort precisely because fallen/”sin-nature” is, by definition, fallen and therefore not as designed. That is — the way humans are naturally born, with their naturally born proclivities, is fallen and not as designed, but is natural, because nature itself is fallen. But that is a statement that most Christians seem to shy away from, because they know that the culture thinks (or perhaps think themselves) that “natural” is the same as “God designed”, when it isn’t anything of the sort, in a fallen nature. All of nature is fallen, and what is natural in this world is not God’s design, from A to Z.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Cameron:
This monologue of mine will soon end. I’ve been under the weather the past couple days so the Lord of the Manor has restricted me to feet up, rest up, so my system can recover from the full vacation we just came off of. After today, I’ll be more scarce, I promise.
Yes, All of creation is deformed sine the fall, including human nature. I would never argue any other point, although I disagree with Nova that our fallenness makes us more like the animals. Not sure I can cross that bridge, because Romans 1 indicates that there is a progression that can take us to that place, but in Christ we can avoid such an awful fate. It is not inevitable that we sink to our lowest possible depraved state. If the fact that even humans in remote cultures, that have never known anything about Christian mores, tend to try and carve out privacy for sex doesn’t indicate a distinction between people and animals, then I don’t know what does.
I was being a little snarky when I mentioned the “evil wimminz”. I have no trouble at all concurring with your analysis of the mess that is modern/postmodern womanhood, and that our culture has shifted in such a way that it rewards women’s ability to act on their most base natures. And yes, that women have heartily taken up the challenge, to everyone’s detriment. At the very least male freedom still has some responsibility attached to it, while women’s has none. Freedom without responsibility is a very bad thing.
My interest was so piqued because I seemed to perceive two different subjects being conflated as one here, and I’m not sure that they are related in the way presented. But I could be wrong about that as well.
LikeLike
Except for being white, and/or male.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Elspeth,
I am sorry you are not feeling well.
Why would you say that – I enjoy your comments.
There’s distinctions with the rest of God’s creation. There’s also similarities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except for being white, and/or male.
Oscar —
Yes, but they can make that inconsistent switch because neither statement represents any firm belief — it is merely a tactical statement, in both cases. That is, they do not metaphysically believe that all people who say that they are gay or trans or what have you are “born that way” in the way someone is born with a certain eye or skin color. They understood, however, that legally and culturally this was a critical argument, precisely because of the jurisprudence and cultural development that had happened around skin color — so the tactic was to “make these things be considered to be the same as skin color” in order to get the same result. Many of the advocates, including many of the beneficiaries themselves, do not actually believe that “LGBT” is the same as skin color, but the argument is a lock winner, tactically, and so it was adopted without reservation across the board.
Because they know it isn’t “true” in any real sense, however, they are free to abandon it as soon as it becomes tactically useful to do so in order to further another goal. So, we see being born male/white/”cis”/”het” is all stuff that is in-born and cannot be changed, per this theory, but the “therefore it is beyond moral sanction” is dropped, because the tactic is to isolate this group based on “born characteristics”, in order to disempower them. In other words, you can change one aspect of the statement chain (in this case, the last one, about something being natural being beyond moral critique) and turn that around 180 degrees to foster “justice”, because pointing that phrase one way fosters justice in one instance, while pointing it the other way fosters justice in another instance — where, in both cases, “justice” means “empowering people we want to empower and disempowering people we want to disempower”.
They don’t have “core” or “metaphysical” beliefs about the “born that way” business, one way or the other. Their “core” or “metaphysical” beliefs are all about power — namely that all human institutions, structures, mores, morals, philosophies, systems of thought, laws, political and economic systems, sexualities and social norms around them, family life, religions and everything else are all tools deployed by the holders of actual power to enforce, entrench and perpetuate their power … and that therefore any one of these things can, and should, be used as a weapon against said power holders in order to disempower them, with nary a care given towards logic, consistency, a broader philosophical or metaphysical belief or anything else, because these are all means to an end in any case .. the end is power, plain and simple. Their metaphysical belief is power — taking it from those who have it and giving it to those whom they believe deserves it (which will, of course, include themselves). Everything else is a mere tool, and is taken no more seriously than needed for the tool to have the desired effect. Therefore they do not care about being consistent — it’s unimportant as long as the tools are effective when they are deployed and have served their purpose.
As an aside, in this specific area, we are, in my opinion on the brink of a total reversal in the “justification” provided for behavior liberation in the sexual area. That is, within the next 10-20 years the main social justification for support of “LGBT” and other paraphilias is going to shift 180 degrees from “born that way” to “freedom to choose” … and no-one will bat an eyelash, because acceptance will be, by then, generationally entrenched in such a way that it is extremely difficult to dislodge, and the younger generations won’t care (and already don’t much care) about the specific “reason” given for it. LGBT will move from something you are born with to something you opt for, and in either case will merit full social approval. This will follow the pattern already established by feminism, and it really is simply a question of time until it becomes the “new reason” for LGBT affirmation, and that will be that.
Again, all of these “arguments” are tools. They are means to an end for our opponents. They are not core beliefs. They can and will be discarded without any difficulty as soon as it makes sense for them to do so because they are about power and not about these arguments — the arguments are means to an end, nothing more (and they see our beliefs, wrongly, in the same way).
LikeLike
@ Nova
Our enemies are post-modernists. They believe that objective truth does not exist… except for the objective truth that objective truth does not exist.
I’ve experienced this first hand. Have you heard the term “multi racial whiteness”? The term may be new, but the concept isn’t. If you think the enemies’ hatred for white men is bad (and it is), you should see their hatred for those they believe “belong” to them by nature, but refuse to play along. Like, say, a Hispanic immigrant who refuses to see himself as a victim.
They hate us with a fury historically reserved for escaped slaves.
I suspect Elspeth knows a thing or two about that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The theory of macroevolution is just lies for rebellious fools who want to make a liar out of God. If you lose your special creation then your morality is all baseless. There is no longer a concrete basis for good and evil, they become what you make them to be. You have human death and corruption before the original sin, so then God is a liar, Genesis is a fairy tale, and the rest of the Bible isn’t to be trusted because it is all based upon Genesis being the actual truth. If you call God a liar, I’ll be shocked if I see you in His kingdom of those who are saved by their faith in Him and His word being true. If you were descended from the image of monkeys, pray to your monkey-god that I come around to seeing things your way. LOL I don’t need to argue this one with you dupes who believe this world’s nonsense. One can believe in concepts like survival of the fittest, but when you believe that things didn’t happen how God said they did, when He said they did, then you’re trusting your own understanding and making God out to be both a fool and a liar. There will not be anybody in heaven who does not acknowledge God as their creator. God has already given their minds over to this world’s depravity.
Your encoded DNA genetic code would mean nothing if there wasn’t already a language by which it is read and functions. You can’t evolve that. You have to be supremely ignorant to say that both the language and the encoded information write themselves, and gain intelligent design information by random events while also writing the code to replicate the new features in a language that already preexisted to accomplish exactly that by giving significance and meaning to the location and alignment of the newly encoded amino acids. It becomes way more far fetched than just believing we were intelligently designed to replicate after our own kind. Macroevolution is willful ignorance. And evopsych is the part of the sketchy field of psychology that is founded solely and directly upon willful ignorance.
I’ll continue to read for my own entertainment as you foolish “monkeys” try to figure out why you wear clothes and don’t publicly humiliate yourselves sexually. LOL
LikeLike
St. Sharkly, O thou great one,
We humbly beseech thee, forgive us our vast ignorance in thy great forbearance and mercy. Have patience with us lowly indigent paeons as we hereby discover the greatness of the LORD and His creation. For we have not yet attained the lofty heights of enlightenment, as you have done ages ago.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Sharkly
Can’t answer for Jack but I don’t think I mentioned macroevolution. There’s commonality in the design, even if creation was literal six days, 6000 years ago. That design is subject to microevolution, selection (including sexual, not just “survival”) and other mechanisms for genome modification (not just “random”).
There’s a logic behind the design and it’s modification. In a world where creation is distorted by the Fall, that modification involves and reflects distortions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
St. Sharkly, O thou great one,
We humbly beseech thee, forgive us our vast ignorance…
LOL If you deny your Creator or believe the Son of God was partly descended from a monkey, it isn’t my forgiveness that you’re going to need. However, common sense ain’t as common as it once was, and I’m pretty forgiving, so, for my part, consider yourselves forgiven, so long as you either quit claiming to be Christians or quit peddling evolutionary explanations contrary to faith in our Creator who made Adam from dust into His own image, and made Eve from Adam’s rib to be his help and mate.
LikeLike
“I know you all are very science minded here, and I appreciate that, but at the end of the day, we’re a bunch of people who believe that a Virgin gave birth, that her Son took all of our sin onto Himself as He was nailed to a cross, was raised from the dead, and is coming again to take us back to Heaven with Him.”
Touche!
I like science and the scientific method! BUT…Elspeth is correct again. I believe in all this ‘non-scientific’ Bible stuff because by faith, I know it’s true with a capital T!
Interestingly, when I became ‘Red Pilled’ on the subject of male-female intersexual dynamics, I listened to the secular RP content creators quite a bit as I worked through what had happened to me as a ‘Blue Piller’ to make me end up taking the Red Pill. A lot of good stuff I digested from their content as I worked my way through my so-called ‘Red Pill Rage’ stage. Here’s the interesting thing though, as I settled down a bit and began to process everything being said in the Manosphere I thought, “Hey wait a minute here, I’ve seen ALL of this somewhere in the Bible.” I mean like beginning with the early Genesis chapters on through the OT, certainly the Book of Proverbs & Song of Songs, and on into the NT; I’m like ‘hold on a second mister Bible believer, you need to ground all this Red Pill philosophy with the Scriptures.” And slowly I have. It’s one of the reasons I like this site. I can’t get this kind of thinking and dialogue from the secular RP sites because, well, they don’t use God’s Word for their foundation, just their worldly understanding of the subject matter. I find myself increasingly when I listen to them, saying to myself, “Okay, that aligns with Scripture; and okay, that doesn’t or it’s flawed natural or secular thinking.” I don’t make them wrong or bad or anything, but I just try to “eat the hay and leave the chaff.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Natural = good must come from folks who don’t have much experince with nature…. like watching a coyote eat a fawn while its still living
LikeLiked by 1 person
Folks who think “Bambi” is a documentary.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL
Stealing that
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe this won’t be all that helpful. I haven’t read this whole piece.
Cane Caldo had a great little paragraph on this a long time ago. And it was something like this (paraphrasing):
Within marriage, sex between husband and wife is intensely private and it is intended to be. God erects a perimetered wall around husband and wife, encloses both within the perimeter. The perimeter doesn’t keep them both in; but it is intended to keep everyone and everything else out. What goes on in the perimeter is between H and W, and no one else is to know about it. Even those who rudely invade the perimeter will not know and will not stay within it. This is what makes marital sex so beautiful and magical – no one other than God, H, and W know or control what goes on inside the perimeter. this is why “the marriage bed is undefiled”.
Something like that.
The other comment I have is the concept of “shame”. Now, “shame” is embarrassment, humiliation, or deprecation that others put on someone. “You ought to be ashamed of yourself.”
But originally, “shame” was intended to correct people who were making private things public. Or taking the private into the public realm. Revealing things known to a few, to people who are not supposed to know. The concept of shame was to get people to keep private and concealed that which is intended to be private and concealed.
The first “shame” was Adam and Eve knowing they were naked after eating from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Before they ate, Adam and Eve did not know shame. God wanted them protected from it. Afterwards, Adam and Eve knew things they were not supposed to know. They knew things God did not intend for them to know. They knew they were naked, but were not supposed to know that or have any understanding of nakedness. Because of their shame, God made skins to cover their bodies, so they would not be ashamed. The skins were a symbol of their now-separation from God. The skins and coverings were between them and God.
It’s why the only place a man and woman are to be naked/nude together is in marriage. Because before that, you aren’t to let others see you uncovered. They are seeing things they do not have a right to see. And you don’t have a right to allow them to see you uncovered. You’re not theirs; and they are not yours.
Just my thoughts.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I’m certain that was true for Adam and Eve but things have changed
I’ve not yet meet the bitch who doesn’t get off on some version of public sex. And I’m pretty sure girls are noisy to see if they can pull someone stronger to to wall paper her baby maker with baby batter
That sex is private now probably has more to do with dudes wanting the security and folks having enough cash to not be crammed into the same room as the rest of their family
LikeLike
Deti and Redpillboomer have said much better what I tried to say in numerous comments. Deti did a great job of paraphrasing CC, who always had a really poetic way of expressing these ideas.
If, as it were, that the fall made humans like animals, then Adam and Eve would never have had the thought of covering up. In fact, their sudden need to cover themselves was an awareness that they were different, not only from the animals, but from God Himself.
Ton’s comment made me aware that the idea of public sex probably is also running through a series of iterations in the minds of each reader. I read it as referring to open, naked copulation, like animals engage in with no regard for surroundings or other creatures (see the monkey graphic). That is animal instinct, and solely a reproductive activity, not the one flesh, unitive act that people engage in. Even Chrissy Tiegen made mention in that article of cloak rooms, hiding under blankets, etc. Not actual naked copulation in public view, for anyone to observe as they sauntered by.
And since all of this reported public activity is with her husband and the father of her kids, this isn’t really about cuckoldry, whatever my disdain for her vulgar ranting and political hack-ness, LOL. It really is about understanding that this particular act is a private one, not to be seen by others. The risk element was the point, not exhibitionism.
I contend that the reason all of humanity intuitively understands the need to cover our nakedness in sexual activity is because we can not -in our essence- be equated with or qualitatively be compared to, animals.
To be sure, there are people so far down the road of depravity that they have thrown off that “natural” conscientiousness regarding nakedness and sexuality (hence the robust porn industry and other online sex markets), but they are still a decided minority. Even with as bad as things have gotten, most people still shut the door.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was thinking more of the other stuff vs open fornication on main street.
Lestwise in The West and large parts of Asia. In large parts of the world banging goats on main street doesn’t cause a fuss
LikeLike
There is no reason to draw a dichotomy between evolution and creation. If God took 6 days to create man with a conscience and a natural understanding of sex as a private matter between husband and wife its no less awesome than if He took 450 billion years to accomplish the same thing.
The only argument I have seen against this is the question of “at what point did evolving man have the moral agency to enter into this type of understanding of himself and his relationship with the creator?”
To that I say “I have no idea” and I don’t care.
LikeLike
On a lighter note (because we could all use a lighter note), this is what happens when you’re too nerdy to bust a move, but nerdy enough to make a robot that can.
LikeLike
They’ll be hunting us down in no time. They’ll shoot first and ask no questions aferward. That mechanical-dog-thing in “Farenheit 451” written back in the early 1950’s. In the mid 1990’s at IBM the platforms for the Watson computer were in full swing. as were the new Cloud and future tech of sorage systems in San Jose No, I wasn’t a brain behind it, nor a developer or innovator….but I was writing the stupid manuals for the “trade” types of men who would do the installs of large mainframe servers that were setting the ground for AI, Google Search, and processing your monthly credit card statements, and your direct depoist. I was unhappy then as well, knowing that the groundwork was being laid to make millions upon millions of us obsolete…..or in this Bostin Dynamic police-government dogs’ case…….enemies of the state. When it busts a move on someone who is deemed an enemy of the police, the government, or for wrong think….it won’t be cute anymore
LikeLike
Is everybody tracking?
If you approach a particular passage of scripture and conclude that there are two equally rational ways to interpret it, and then equivocate because it’s not a deal breaker for your faith, you are a “dupe.”
This is why I take the occasional long break from these places. Not because I can’t handle name calling.
Just so I keep from going crazy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL Jack came off the top ropes for that one!
And I am a 6 day creationist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Revealing the motives behind unconcealed sex and nakedness | Σ Frame
Pingback: The Advent of Polysexuality | Σ Frame
Pingback: The Influence of Culturally Imposed Sexuality on Women | Σ Frame
Pingback: Secrets | Σ Frame
Pingback: Is Our Fallen Nature as God Designed it? | Σ Frame
Do humans truly conceal mating? Only in the sense that the act of intercourse is not to be done in full view of witnesses – but that certain males and females are sexually involved is not kept secret, except in specific circumstances: the church pastor who involves himself in illicit liaisons will keep it hidden, because he knows his action violative of church regulations – he wants to keep his reputation and his job! Similarly for a CEO taking a forbidden office lover: he does not wish to threaten his employment! But in neither of these cases would the man feel the need to conceal his sexual partnering with a spouse. And outside the bounds of institutional taboos, even casual mating is seldom furtive: go to any college campus, and you will find young males eager to boast of sexual prowess to their peers; I never met one, popular with the ladies, who felt bound to pretend to celibacy beside his friends. Everyone knew who had slept with whom.
LikeLike
John,
In Ben Mocha’s paper, sexual privacy is defined as taking measures to conceal (at least partly) legitimate mating from the sensory perception of adult conspecifics. It does not mean to conceal the knowledge of such pairings, such as what would be conveyed in the boasting of sexual conquests. Reasons for concealing illegitimate mating were discussed in the OP.
LikeLike
I would reply, Jack, to that argument as follows: In animals, to conceal sensory perception of copulation is effectively to conceal knowledge thereof — in fact, that is the entire point; unless two animals are seen in the act, there is no way to pick out a mating. With humans, though, the argument breaks down: knowledge of matings requires no perception. According to Ben Mocha’s thesis, matings are concealed to prevent sexual jealousies from impairing male social cooperation: but those jealousies arise from the the KNOWLEDGE of the pairing, not only the visual / auditory witness of copulation. Has there ever been a man cuckolded by a spouse or girlfriend, content with the knowledge so long as the act is kept hidden? Of course not! His jealous rage would be the same either way. My point, then, is that Ben Mocha’s thesis works only in situations where knowledge and sensory perception overlap; concealing sensory perception while allowing knowledge free roam is largely pointless.
LikeLike
John,
Ben Mocha’s paper reported that it is very rare for animals to conceal sensory perception of copulation. Out of millions of species, only one type of bird (the Arabian Babbler) has been found to exhibit this behavior.
The older research assumed that humans concealed copulation to prevent jealousy. Ben Mocha asserted that this is an inadequate explanation (as you also pointed out in your last comment), and said that the value of concealing the act of mating (even though it may be known) is to prevent the sexual arousal of others. Ben Mocha says this in his paper (cited in the OP).
IOW, concealment is intended to prevent the liaison from becoming an orgy.
In this case of cuckoldry, secrecy is intended to grant the woman autonomous power over her mating choices and employ an AF/BB sexual strategy, despite already being married. Secrecy is also beneficial to the sexual strategy of the man involved in the affair. I described this in the second to last section entitled, The CMH Applied to the Current SMP.
LikeLike
Pingback: Revisiting Val Bure’s Dominant Manhandling Incident | Σ Frame