Why did/do we see each other in terms of our perceived sexual roles?

[FormerFundie2004]

I was reading something recently about how women used to be viewed as extremely important in a tribe. This was before people were aware that men contributed anything to the reproductive process--when people thought that women reproduced asexually, and sex had nothing to do with it. Woman was seen as the sustainer of the tribe (becuase she kept baring more members), and therefore had the most important roles.

Then the era came when men figured out they had something to do with it. Soon after came the patriarchy, when people forgot women had anything to do with it. Women were just sacks that carried a man's child. The sperm had a whole person; there was no egg.

Now we know that man and woman have equal parts to play. Notice the parallels between our social evolution and our new phases of knowledge of the reproductive process? They are directly linked. This shows that we see each other in terms of our perceived sexual roles. WHY????!!!

Religion was and is also viewed in terms of our own sexuality and characteristics. Religion was feminine in nature during the matriarchy--nature worship. Earth was the life giver, the mother of nature. The diety was female.

Then during the patriarchy, the god became male. Wars, dominance, dominion over all of nature, etc.

Is sex the central theme of our religion, our social behavior, our riturals, and basically everything we think and do? Is sex the central theme of life?

Why?

[Sweetie]

Is sex the central theme of our religion, our social behavior, our riturals, and basically everything we think and do? Is sex the central theme of life?

Why?

I don't know anything on the subject really but it seems to me that sex=survival, it can't be anything less than of prime importance.

[lady cop]

because it is so basic. so fundamental. we can talk all we want, but nothing else matters to us more than the one we are intimate with. human nature.

[Sweetie]

Evolution, I would think, requires that we reproduce ourselves and that we set up cultural norms to promote the most successful ways to do that. I think love is just a secondary issue though it is of prime importance to us, it is of greater importance in an underlying way that we mate and spawn, I guess. :D I have wondered if the reason that sexual bonds are so important to us is for evolutionary reasons which are underlying, a subconscious thing, I don't know.

Our culture is changing, the society as a whole is confident that we will not die out and that there is no threat to it's survival so it feels like it's time to change some of our norms. I wonder that if there was a threat, if the society would turn on itself in an evolutionary sense and promote and reward heterosexual unions like it has in the past in it's best interest for the sake of reproduction. Some interesting thoughts and questions I've considered before, the evolution of culture and cultural norms.

I know nothing though, these are just some random thoughts I've contemplated before.

[FormerFundie2004]

Yeah, perhaps sex is deeply embedded in us that we project it onto everything--religion, thought, social behavior and norms, etc.

Sex so defines us that even the perceived roles we play in sex determine how we are seen in all aspects of social life.

If women do not contribute anything to baby-making, they are inferior. If women reproduce asexually, they are treated with all respect and dignity, and given power, simply because they make babies automatically. Sex was power.

In fact, sex is still power.

This is so difficult though for me to grasp because I just don't relate social behavior to perceived sex roles anyway. To my mind, it doesn't matter if men or women are asexual or sexual, lay eggs or what! Who even cares. That has nothing to do with our rights or power or authority, to my mind. I just can't connect them.

[FormerFundie2004]

Evolution, I would think, requires that we reproduce ourselves and that we set up cultural norms to promote the most successful ways to do that.

Maybe that's how marriage evolved? ;) Just a thought!

I think love is just a secondary issue though it is of prime importance to us, it is of greater importance in an underlying way that we mate and spawn, I guess. :D I have wondered if the reason that sexual bonds are so important to us is for evolutionary reasons which are underlying, a subconscious thing, I don't know.

Probably. Sex is just in our hardware I guess.

Our culture is changing, the society as a whole is confident that we will not die out and that there is no threat to it's survival so it feels like it's time to change some of our norms.

Maybe you have a point. We feel comfortable at this point; we are wealthy and healthy and have easy access to anything we need or want. We are not worried about our survival.

I wonder that if there was a threat, if the society would turn on itself in an evolutionary sense and promote and reward heterosexual unions like it has in the past in it's best interest for the sake of reproduction.

Yes, perhaps that would happen.

Some interesting thoughts and questions I've considered before, the evolution of culture and cultural norms.

I know nothing though, these are just some random thoughts I've contemplated before.

They sound pretty plausible.

[Sweetie]

Maybe that's how marriage evolved? ;) Just a thought!

Haha, why yes, the thought did cross my mind. :P

[Socratoad]

I really would like to contribute to this thread, alas I'm so tired I am barely functioning. perhaps tomorrow.

[Adora]

I was reading something recently about how women used to be viewed as extremely important in a tribe.(yadda yadda yadda)
DUDE! This was that thing I was talking about with peer or whoever it was a while ago, and forgot the book and the conversation (hee, sorry). Do you remember what the book was called?

And it's not necessarily the roles we play in sex that define us, but the way those roles are perceived within the powerful systems of culture and society. Knowledge about (well, anything) sexuality can be censored or used as biased propaganda if the wrong people get their hands on it. It can also be lied about, or the truth can be badly twisted because it upsets too many social stigmas.

[Dingfod]

Wikipedia has this to say about matriarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy).

[Socratoad]

Wikipedia has this to say about matriarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy).

Hot damn warrenly, what a great resource, a set of most interesting links. Its just the sort of information pertaining to cultures and customs that turns my crank. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I have wanted to become a researcher and contributer to Wikipedia for some time now ...... a very worthwhile project. Unfortunately over the years my mind has become just so undisciplined that I'm afraid its no longer possible.

[bobeh]

I was reading something recently about how women used to be viewed as extremely important in a tribe. This was before people were aware that men contributed anything to the reproductive process--when people thought that women reproduced asexually, and sex had nothing to do with it. Woman was seen as the sustainer of the tribe (becuase she kept baring more members), and therefore had the most important roles.

Then the era came when men figured out they had something to do with it. Soon after came the patriarchy, when people forgot women had anything to do with it. Women were just sacks that carried a man's child. The sperm had a whole person; there was no egg.

Now we know that man and woman have equal parts to play. Notice the parallels between our social evolution and our new phases of knowledge of the reproductive process? They are directly linked. This shows that we see each other in terms of our perceived sexual roles. WHY????!!!
?
Not sure that religious history is that cleanly linked to people's understanding of sex.

Religion was and is also viewed in terms of our own sexuality and characteristics. Religion was feminine in nature during the matriarchy--nature worship. Earth was the life giver, the mother of nature. The diety was female.

Then during the patriarchy, the god became male. Wars, dominance, dominion over all of nature, etc.

Is sex the central theme of our religion, our social behavior, our riturals, and basically everything we think and do? Is sex the central theme of life?

Why?

Somewhat easy to suggest that sex is the central theme of life from an evolutionary point of view. Where the organism depends on two parents (i.e. sexual forms of reproduction) then the survival or success of the species depends on sex. Successful reproduction is necessary.

Behaviors that go along with that vary lots between species. There are evolutionary "explanations" for any given behavior I suppose, but the trick is to be able to provide some sort of proof or evidence that these explanations are indeed how these behaviors evolved. So I suppose most of these explanations are speculative in the scientific sense. But, still plausible.

All of the following behaviors have some such speculative evolutionary explanation.
- males desiring sex with multiple partners
- females desiring sex with multiple partners
- males desiring "relationship" with one or few partners
- females desiring "relationship" with one or few partners
- avoidance of sex with blood relatives
- male mid-life crisis
- altuistic behavior
- etc. etc.

Those that appear contradictory are probably just that. Nothing in evolution demands that there be only one sort of behavior. Behavior patterns may be flexible, may change through the life cycle of the organism, or may be expressed differently in different sub-sets of a population.

How this then translates to institutions, to social mores, to religion, to politics, to religion - probably in very significant ways, however there is a randomenss to human behavior that might be a side effect of speech and problem-solving abilities of humans.

[JoeP]

I really would like to contribute to this thread, alas I'm so tired I am barely functioning. perhaps tomorrow.
Dear :toad:, in a thread about sex this is too funny. "I have a headache." :wink:

[JoeP]

The prehistoric nature of society is, unless anyone can point to evidence otherwise, pure speculation. All those female fertility idols show that the female ideal was worshipped, but not that females had power to match. That said, I think the understanding of males' role in reproduction must have had a big impact on societies, as you suggested.

But the fact remains that as a species, males are somewhat larger and stronger than females, and without needing to look at human behaviour we can pretty much deduce from the pattern of other mammals that humans evolved to live in packs with a dominant male or males. All the fantasy of writers like Jean M Auel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Auel) may be just wishful thinking.

Another big factor (affecting the tendency to wars and so on) is the transition from, or conflict between, nomadic hunting lifestyles and settled agricultural lifestyles. The male/female roles in these alternate modes are not by any means fixed, and you can have earth-mother worship in both, but they are vastly different in terms of group behaviour. Nomads can and do move on; settled groups defend their land and have some interest in fighting others for land.

Which reminds me of a sex-role influence: a male-dominated group that is biologically or culturally driven to fight other groups and take their women as slaves or whatever, for reproduction, will tend to grow and overwhelm others. This might be a cause for male-dominated societies to have taken over.

joe