luvluv

The title of this thread is perhaps somewhat misleading. I am not going to try to make a case for fidelity per se. I am trying to make a case that some of our emotional responses to our sexual behavior, be those responses positive or negative, often have their root in human nature. I am also going to (briefly) attempt to explore whether these feelings have any propriety in the context of modern expressions of sexuality. I speak as an unlearned man with respect to evolutionary theories, so I am going to try to make my case sticking to common sense implications of evolutionary theory. I would also like to state here that on the most fundamental level, none of what I will suggest will at all contradict with a theistic or Christian account of the emotions surrounding the sex act. All of what I will say about the naturalistic functions of sexual emotions would apply to a theistic worldview for the same reasons, however, the theistic worldview would have another explanation (involving things such as the culmination of the most character, the active application of love, etc.) which we can omit from a naturalistic explanation.

My basic goal is to assess notions such as this one, offered up (perhaps sarcastically) by my distinguished opponent in another thread, dangin:

The assumption underlying this bit of sarcasm is a prevelant one, but one that I think for many reaons to be innacurate. Basically, the idea expressed here is this:

Human sexuality, in it's natural form, is without inhibitions, taboos, or restrictions. Before organized religion came to dominate human thinking, all sexual expression regardless of the number, gender, age, or consent of the particpants was enjoyed without significant moral qualms.

However, through the machinations of the church, mankind become burdened with guilt regarding certain sexual activities. This guilt has no natural roots, nor any purpose, in human sexuality at all. Rather, it exists only as an imposition of organized religion.

Once one is removed from the shackles of organized religion, one begins to experience sexuality apart from any emotional feelings whatsoever. One is free to express one's sexuality in any way in which one chooses. Such a free person may still experience certain pangs of guilt or discomfort at some of his sexual decisions, but such a person can feel free to totally blame this on the influence of organized religion, totally deny that these feelings therefore have any legitimate claim on his behavior, and supress or deny them to the point where, for him, they will cease to exist.

This is the notion underlying much of the critique of the critiques made against some expressions of sexuality. I think it relies on several assumptions which are quite without anything like overwhelming support, and others which seem extraordinarily questionable even given a fully naturalistic paradigm.

The first mistaken assumption is that feelings of guilt around sexual activities can have no logical roots in human nature, and is imposed on human nature from without.

I think we can all agree that the emotion of guilt is part of a process produced by evolution which we call morality. In this case, I am not speaking of any specific form of morality, but rather this simple capacity and tendency to feel the emotion of guilt for acts which are destructive, and to feel the sense of moral elatedness at acts which are co-operative and unselfish.

I think we would all assume that, though the emotion of guilt can become overbearing and destructive, that there is such a thing as a healthy amount of guilt, and that the ability to feel wrong about wrong actions is part of any mentally healthy human being's functionality. Morality, thus understood, is a positive force in human nature which promotes succesful behavior and discourages unsuccesful behavior. We all agree that the emotion of guilt, when produced by an act which disagrees with common morality, is overall a positive tool for humanity. Does the same hold true for that domain of ethics known as sexual morality?

Could there be evolutionary goals, innate in human nature, that are better acheived by one method of sexual expression than another? And in such a case, could it be that evolution has produced moral "spurs" to provoke us to a certain type of sexual behavior?

I think the obvious answer to this question is yes. There is almost no question that the evolutionary purpose of sex is succesful reproduction with the most able partners. Sex is indeed pleasurable, but by any realistic evolutionary account the pleasure of sex is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

(Even the female clitoris, so often produced as a reproductively unecessary organ, has it's origins in reproductive functions. In the developmental stages of human babies, the bit of tissue that will become either the female cliltoris or the male penis is for a time a "neutral player" whose shape will only be determined as the chemicals needed to determine the sex of the child are released. In a manner of speaking, the female clitoris only exists because developmentally it might have been a penis, the reproductive purpose of which is obvious)

It seems to me quite probable, therefore, that since such a large amount of energy and resources are consumed in the search for sexual partners, nature would be inclined to promote the types of behavior which are most likely to lead to viable offspring by the most able and willing partners. It seems very probable to me, therefore, that evolution could select for "guilt" feelings to surround less productive uses of the sex drive. These feelings would be likely to surround any sexual activities devoid of reproductive intent. And we find that, in our experiences, they do. They quite often surround masterbation, casual sex, and acts of infidelity. All these instances (and others too controversial to enter into briefly here) are the types of sexual expressions that are least likely to yield offspring that are viable or protected.

It seems to me, then, that many of the emotions of guilt surrounding sexuality have a clear and obvious naturalistic explanation. And, using Ockham's razor, I think we could agree that invoking a supernatural agent (or a representative of said supernatural agent, the church) to account for feelings of guilt surrounding the sex act to be superflous and therefore unnecessary.

It is clear that religious institutions have taken up the cause of these feelings of guilt, but it is not clear that the church caused these emotions of guilt, and still less likely that these feelings of guilt are not grounded in human nature. The church has, no doubt, been occasionally overzealous in it's enforcement of these feelings, but there can be no doubt that the feelings came first, and came naturally, and that the churches enforcement or advocation of the propriety of these feelings came later.

The second mistaken assumption surrounding this assumption, is the notion that the church, Christianity, or theism in general thinks that all sex is bad.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the excessive influence of a handful of individuals (St. Augustine and the apostle Paul most prominently) most organized religions have always advocated that sexuallity in it's proper context was good and necessary. Observe the scandalously sensual Song of Solomon from the Old Testament and the exhortations of Paul. Despite his personal decision to remain celibate, Paul believed that married couples should not abstain from having sex for any reason except in seasons of intense prayer.

Many people on this board commit a bifurcation fallacy in assuming that one must take the position that sex is either a) bad or b) good. Absent from such a framework is simple questions like: Sex with who? How old are the particpants? Are they both willing? Is one person taking advantage of the other? Are either of them breaking commitments to engage in the sexual act? Etc.

The question, obviously, is not so simple. Christianity believes that the gift of human sexuality, as a whole, is an absolute good. It holds that specific expressions of that sexuality, depending on such issues as those addressed above, can be very bad. Thus, Christianity holds that God built in moral feelings around the sex act positively to promote the expression of healthy sexuality and negatively to discourage the expression of non-productive or immoral sexuality. It holds that, as C.S. Lewis has said, there is no seperate category of "sexual ethics", there are only "human ethics." And as such, sexual expression, no less than verbal or physical expressions, should be restricted along the lines of charity, unselfishness, reciprocity, fidelity, honesty, honoring of one's commitments, and love.

The third mistaken assumption of this view is that contraception has liberated us from the need for emotional spurs surrounding the sex act.

It is true that our sexual emotions largely stem from the reproductive intent of the sex act. It would therefore seem plausible that where sex can be prevented from resulting in procreation, then all prohibitions around the act which were intended to aid procreation can be safely ignored.

Of course, this view is far more tenable on the naturalistic than on the theistic view, but I think it is nonetheless problematic.

It is far from evident to me, from an emotional health standpoint, that any of us are truly capable of disconnecting millions and millions of years of evolutionarily programed responses because of the advent of the pill or the condomn. We have been programed, deep within or pyschology and physiology, to react to the sex act as if it's intent was procreative. Can we know then will away this hardwiring because of the advent of contraception and not have any emotional baggage at all? I would doubt it. Even if these feelings were now unnecessary, they are still an integral and undeniable part of us. We can no more turn off our emotional reactions to sex than we can turn off our natural response to salivate in the presence of food. The fact that we can now use our free unresticted access to water to break down the food we eat without saliva does not stop the saliva from flowing. Neither does the fact that we can now use our free and unresticted access to contraception stop our emotional reactions to unproductive expressions of our sexuality.

Further, I think the emotions are still necessary as an attempt promote reproduction in a society which is, at present, depopulating itself. The Western world, with it's more aggressive attachment to casual sex, is not replacing itself. Sexuality has been so far removed from any intent to bring life into the world that this generation is not producing enough children to maintain a stable population. (It seems to me to be morally correct, therefore, to argue against casual sex and the occasional overuse of contraception on these grounds alone, but that is for another day) I think, it being that we are all carried away with the natural right of sex as we are in the Western World, that evolution still has a stake in using our physiological moral response to try to promote more sex for the sake of reproduction by discouraging sex for the sake of sex.

I realize this argument can be used against the use of contraception by commited partners. But remember, the use of contraception is so recent that no evolutionary response could have been worked up by now (although it could be argued that one is coming). Evolution has had time, however, to attach guilt responses to our emotional intents with our partner. (This is probably why we often feel guilty for having sex with a partner who is more commited to us than we are to them.) At any rate, there is as of yet no evolutionary response of guilt attached to the use of contraception. Therefore, so long as one has feelings of commitment to the partner, one can probably use contraception without invoking any feelings of guilt.

Now, for the theist, ironically, the issue is perhaps not so grim. The theist can argue, at least on a certain level, that God intended for sexuality to be pleasurable at least partially sheerly for pleasure's sake, and out of His desire to give a beautiful gift to His children. That case is hard to make for the naturalist. That being the case, the theist is even MORE at home arguing that sex should be enjoyed than the naturalist, who could only argue that the pleasure is an advantageous side effect of reproductive intent.

Thoughts, comments, and corrections welcome.

Luiseach

Actually, you are mistaken about the clitoris being little more than a residual penis. The clitoris plays an important role in the reproductive process; when properly stimulated, the woman will orgasm, which causes contractions within the vaginal tract. If sperm is present, the female orgasm increases the chances of conception. So the clitoris doesn't just exist 'because developmentally it might have been a penis'; it exists in its own right, for a specific purpose, just as the penis does.

tronvillain

luvluv:
Contrary to your claim, I do not think that was the idea being expressed. All that was being pointed out was that Christian churches have done quite a lot to make people guilty about sex. This is not to say that people did not feel guilty or have taboos about sex without Christian churches, but the point still stands.

That may be a mistaken assumption, but so is the assumptiont that none of the guilt around sexual activities is imposed on human nature from without. It is easy to see how hurting someone physically or emotionally (nonconsentual sex or sex outside an explicitly monogamous relationship) would naturally cause guilt, but it is not as easy to see why oral or anal sex or masturbation would. Coincidently , these are all things which people do not appear to feel guilty about without having the guilt externally imposed.

While the clitoris has its origin in the basic reproductive function, it is obvious that the ability of women to take pleasure in sex and have sex at any time (unlike most mammals) serves a secondary reproductive function. The clitoris is a large and complex organ, and is hardly the leftovers of what "might have been a penis."

Perhaps not all of Christianity or theism thinks that "all sex" is bad, but that still leaves open possibilities such as all or mosto f Christianity or theism thinking that some or much of sex is bad. Sex between individuals of the same sex, sex outside of marriage, sex for fun, sex by one's self, and many other forms of sex are all things which have been condemned.

Who makes such an assumption? All contraception eliminates is much of the worry about pregnancy. As as result, it fascillitates casual sex and sex outside of marriage, but that says nothing about the emotions involved.

luvluv

From the naturalistic case from evolution I just attempted to make, it is VERY easy to see why these activities would produce negative feelings. They don't end in procreation, which is the intent of sexual intercourse from the naturalistic standpoint. (Though, again, the theist can say that fun is an end in itself, not just a means. I'm going to invent a bumper sticker that says: "Christianity: we do it for fun" )

I would not agree with you that people do not naturally have guilty feelings around oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation. I think it is quite apparent that they often do. The question is whether the natural feelings produced the religious prohibitions or whether the religious prohibitions produced the natural feelings. Again, a clearly plausible naturalistic explanation would seem to suggest that such feelings have their root in evolution. Thus, using Ockham's razor, there is no need to invoke the church to explain them. Unless you can provide me with a more parsimonious explanation for these feelings attending non-procreative sex acts than the obvious naturalistic one, I am afraid I will have to reject the notion that these feelings are anything but nature's way of gently prodding us to be fruitful and multiply. The church may advocate for these negative emotional responses surrounding non-procreative sex acts, they may even occasionally augment them unnecessarily, but that does not mean that they caused them, or that they can be safely ignored.

Jamie_L

I think natural or naturalistic is the wrong adjective to be throwing around here. What is a "natural feeling of guilt"? What is it's opposite? A supernatural feeling of guilt? It's confusing.

I think (if I'm reading luvluv's posts right) he's arguing for an "instinctive" guilt, i.e. one that results from our nature and not from our nurture. His explanation for why it exists is a "naturalistic" explanation in that it doesn't invoke the supernatural. However, guilt caused by church indoctrination is also "natural" in that it doesn't invoke a supernatural cause either. Just a cause outside the person having the guilt.

Having said all that, my observations of my young children are lead me to believe there isn't much instinctive guilt to be found in the human animal. Until they are taught right and wrong, they tend to not really think twice about just doing what they want.

I think there is some evidence for evolutionary origins of monogamy. We see monogamy in a lot of animals. But I don't think there's much if any instinctive guilt that goes along with denying those instincts. In fact, we also seem to have some instincts that are just the opposite. We're a complex and confusing animal.

But I'm mostly talking out of my arse here. (Should I feel guilty for that? )

Jamie

luvluv

People say stuff like this a lot, but I think children are the worst possible measuring sticks for morality because they are so fundamentally selfish. I know that sounds terrible, but think about children. They don't just lack sexual inhibitions they lack all inhibition. I don't think we can gauge whether or not it's right or wrong to do something based on whether or not children feel bad about doing it. I think we would all develop moral feelings about our behaviour (sexual or otherwise) once we were dependant enough and involved enough in a community, and old enough to realize that we aren't the center of the world. That doesn't mean those laws are imposed on us by society. It may be more the case that we have evolved (or, more accurately, designed ) to be social beings. At any rate, there are lots of reasons to believe the feelings are, to a large extent, innate.

Jamie_L

Not terrible at all. It's just a fact that kids have virtually no empathy at birth, and empathy is the source of most feelings of morality. Kids are selfish brutes until you teach them not to be.

I wasn't trying to imply that. Let me restate: It's my feeling that if we have instinctive emotions, those emotions will be present without us having to learn them. If we don't have to learn them, children should have those emotions. We see that children do have instinctive drives to trust and love their parents. They have instinctive feelings to feel happy when their desires are fulfilled and to get upset when their desires are thwarted. They do not seem to have an instinctive sense of guilt or an instinctive sense of morality.

Agreed.

This is where we diverge. I don't see how something that isn't present at an early age can become present without it coming from some external source. We only realize we aren't the center of our world because we are taught that. We can see examples of people who aren't taught that very well, and they continue to see themselves as the center of the world when they become adults. We are taught many things by parents and society, and that doesn't make these things bad. While children are certainly born with the capacity for empathy and guilt, my experience suggests that they must actually be taught these things in order to possess them. My child would never have figured out it was wrong to hit someone if I didn't tell him. He might have figured out that it was dangerous to hit someone who was bigger than him, but the foundation for an empathic, moral feeling pretty much has to be instilled.

Absolutely. However, there's a difference between having the mental capacity for certain social traits and possessing those traits. People have the capacity to learn to speak English, but that doesn't mean we can speak English without ever being exposed to it.

I tend to disagree. But, what else is new, right?

Jamie

Edited because I thought of a better analogy.

dangin

Jamie, don't reduce your contribution here by saying you are talking out of your "arse", I think you are right on the money.

luvluv, are you actually saying that selfish children will grow "naturally" into caring and sharing adults.

Then go on to say

So children are selfish little buggers to start with (agreed) but once they are involved with others they become decent members of society?

So at what age does this innate socialization occur? What is the magic hormonal switch that makes beastly children into excellent friends and neighbors. Is it when they are teens? We all know that teens never rebel, or engage in antisocial behavior.

Children are an excellent example of what the raw material of humanity is, just like Jamie_L wrote. And it is through TRAINING, constant, repetitive, pavlovian (for lack of a better term) training that human children become human adults that are socialized.

This training is the one and only source of human guilt as well. Our capacity for all our emotions is hardwired. I'll grant that, but guilt is not hate. Hate is something that evolved as a facet of fear. It serves a protective purpose. Guilt is far more complex and involves actually identifying with (feeling empathy for) the person that one has hurt. We must understand that our actions hurt someone else, and have the capacity to translate that feeling to ourselves and understand that we would not like it if the tables were turned. This is obviously a more complex emotion (and a taught one at that) because unlike hate it does not come naturally. Hate has to be controlled, empathy has to be taught and built up. Once again, as examples, I point to all the individuals and anecdotal evidence we all know involving people hurting others on a regular basis.

So your whole argument stems from guilt evolved to help monogamy. I think I am doing you justice here?

Then one simple question. Why aren't we monogamous?

In fact almost no primate species are monogamous, and certainly none of the apes are. The primate female practice of sleeping with every male possible to confuse the paternity of children so all males in the troop have an investment in protecting, or at least not killing the child is a prime example.

The hoarding of harems among alpha chimps and gorillas (even though the lower males sneak a little on the side) also clearly illustrates the lack of monogamy among our closest relatives.

And of course the studies of human sexuality vary greatly, but a life long, one partner sexual relationship is statistically minor no matter what culture (or study) you look at. We cheat, we are serially monogamous, we cohabitate, split up and cohabitate again.

This "innate" guilt you talk about is evolutionarily so ineffective as to not be a selection criteria. In other words it does not exist. Every cuckold raising another man's child could tell you that if he knew.

So, you need to establish that guilt is innate. Which you have not done. I think it is far clearer that it is a taught reaction. Without an innate "morality" your entire argument falls apart. For their to be an "innate" morality you must claim that a human, raised in a vacuum would develop moral sense. Short of that, morality is taught, as is guilt. And religion is a pervasive teacher of right and wrong. From whence comes the idea that religion is the root cause of (pointless) sexual guilt.

Masturbation being the best example of this. Masturbation should be utterly guilt free. There certainly is no evolutionary reason for it not to be.

Ab_Normal

Jamie_L: :notworthy :notworthy

You can "talk our your arse" on my behalf at any time - your parental observations certainly coincide with mine.

luvluv

It is probably the case that neither of us really has enough scientific expertise to be making the statements that we're making, (and I don't think we should feel guilty about that, darnitt!) but I would disagree here.

Our moral feelings, the feeling of "guilt", even "condemnation" and the "high" of doing something good are all physilogical phenomenae hardwired into our bodies. Endorphins, I believe, are released when we do something we consider morally right or altruistic. When we experience the physiological response of guilt, the depression the bad feelings have their roots in chemical responses in our bodies.

I have been taught to ride a bike, but I don't experience "guilt" when I ride my bike correctly. I may experience frustration or sadness, but not guilt. I do think that these physiological responses are part of a "sensory" input system that is no different from our visual, auditory, or olfactory systems of input and no less necessary. It is true that they are more pliable than those other senses, but they are no less hardwired into the human brain. We do, to a certain extent, have to be taught the right conception of right and wrong, but we DO NOT have to taught how to FEEL guilt or how to FEEL good about ourselves when we do something right. The reactions that produce those feelings, and the fact that those reactions ATTEND certain of our decisions, are innate factors about us.

And it would seem somewhat natural to me that nature would not select for "guilt" feelings to spur the behavior of children onto procreative activities because children can't procreate. And on the more accurate theistic view, I don't think it would be overly necessary for God to make children feel bad about themselves for what is in all likliehood innocent play. Parents and churches, however, might lack a certain perspective where these activities are concerned.