Total Pageviews

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Help! Help! I'm being repressed.

We talk today about a natural state of humanity, and established cultural norms. This seems to be a big argument that people like to use to justify behavior or to allow special privilege for themselves or others. This is in part a larger picture of the nurture versus nature argument. This covers topics from law creation, public nudity, monogamy, and family construction.

I am going to start by saying the nurture side has a lot of my support. Don't get me wrong I feel great when I can embrace my nature in regards to clothing, and those of you that know, know that my wife has to remind me to put pants on when we have company. On the nurture side though I say thank you evolution and tool development. I mean really its great to run around naked, but there are some people out there that should NEVER be naked, ever. Clothes where created for a reason, protecting out fragile bodies from the sun, weather, and sandy ass cracks. They also protect our eyes from those that feel they have the right to graze at Mc Donald's and show the world the results.

People complain about certain laws and marvel at how they came to be, but law in essence is a reflection of custom. Law is the enforced morality of a culture. That is at least how it was supposed to be. So laws developed around nudity because more then one person felt like I do about certain people should be covered up. People agree murder is wrong so it in turn became law. That is social law of course and how it becomes to be, or at least is how it supposed to be. So to me the concept of anarchy is redundant because people are still looking to enforce the sets of their own social morals because it makes them feel better. You know how much of a soulful erection a dude gets when he forces the will of "his people" on someone else, before the laws of nature get to him?

Breaking down this macrocosmic view of nurture and nature gets me wondering about monogamy. You see old time religious views talk about a man and wife, and hint at monogamy. Early laws suggest marriage as a contract but monogamy was a state of being for many couples through out the world. Now why is this when some smart cats with more degrees then a thermometer tell us that monogamy is not the natural state of man. And by man I mean the penis kind and the woah kind, I am referring to the species of man. Where do the concepts of infidelity and monogamy come from?

Well first lets look at one of the most accepted concept of morality, that being religion. Though lately those preaching religion to the masses are rarely examples of morality. Some text like the old testament lay down laws to people as if they come from Gods lips. You prepare your food in a manner that is "kosher", you wash your feet or hands at certain times, and you do and don't do certain things with animals. Why this early hygiene guide written into our moral code? Because people are more receptive to nurture then they are to nature. God is easier then learning. If you want your people to be healthy, fruitful and able to multiply then you give them instructions and say they came from God. In doing that they do not question, they just do.

What does this have to do with monogamy, well a lot actually. It is hard to enforce control over population when there is limited accountability. You know what hole that fuck trophy crawled out of, but you might not be sure who the sperm donor is. However if you force pairs then at least you know one partner can be held accountable for raising another generation of mind controlled masses and you wrap all that responsibility under the guise of lineage and inheritance. Even though it was started with the intent to control the population it also served a purpose to help understand population control. By limiting partners you limit the spread of disease, you encourage the fixation of the family unit. It can and should be healthy even though nature screams inside your bones with each glace of the potentiality of partners that move around each day.

The nail in the coffin for most people is the that social development tying the physical with the emotional. Conditioning of the social constraints and society enforcing that bond of two people by making it love making. They tied the heart and mind to what used to be a baser physical act, and social development went as far to tie is so deeply into our being that many people find they can not climax with out heavy emotional involvement. Even to a point that people who are in polyamorous relationships, or swingers, or open relationships, or living the lifestyle, still gravitate to a main relationship, or their number one. So in this case nurture became nature. Now it is natural to have someONE in your life.

So the point of all of this is that we do not seem to give thought to what we call repression. Social norms do develop for a reason, and by understanding some of the aspects of that positive and negative we can enhance our life. How we do that is understand the reasons behind it so we can find the positive of any social behavior. Then looking at that you can see the negative part of it in a different light, and maybe, just maybe you can remove those aspects you consider negative. Responsibility is not negative. Just saying that.


  1. Interesting. I think I'll chew on this a while and see where it leaves me. Somewhere in there is biological imperative, and I'd like to see where it plays out in my head.

  2. That is the purpose of all this, get people to think and give them something to chew on. Different perspective.

  3. The assumption here would be that people don't generally think about the rules beyond the accepted "norm". Admittedly, I find this to be the case or else we wouldn't seriously be considering giving people the right to go into the opposite gender's restroom because they feel they were born with the wrong plumbing. I guess that's another topic of discussion.

    Anyway, there are two kinds of people and they interchange at times. There are the movers and the shakers. Cliche? Yes, but what does it mean? The movers affect change, the shakers contribute to the mass movement in the direction of that change as if it had been a good idea all along- perhaps perceived to have been uniquely their own idea that just never got a fair shake. How many times have you gotten something at the store and thought to yourself, "Wow, I'm sure glad I discovered that! I'm going to have to tell my friends about that." And we add a couple more PSI to the ego for something someone else came up with and charged you through the nose to call your own.

    This is just human nature. We go with what we like and we embrace it. We'll put a price to it and NEVER part until we find something better. Material items are self explanatory. Laws are priced with fines, imprisonment, and even death.

    As far as monogomy, I argue that it is, in fact, human nature for anyone who has emotionally matured beyond the age of 25ish. There are aspects to monogomy that are priceless if we can secure them: familiarity, trust, consistency, dependability, etc. When combined in one package and the value is truly understood there is nothing that can challenge its worth. Unfortunately, as I mentioned already, too many people fail to think about why they like something. Why should it be the norm? So, instead of thinking about the cost/benefit of satisfying a moment's desire in exchange for the intricate foundation of an established relationship, folks narrow their thinking to "eh, it's just a moment". I guarantee that unless there was a serious problem in the relationship already the decision to stray is universally regretted. Shake all you want in the community of sexual drifters, but your activity is meaningless.

    A solid relationship is a mover. At the very least it is marginally, if at all, affected by the shaking of society. Nobody seriously looks to the polygamist and marvels at their accomplishments (beyond a fleeting, lustful envy gurgling from our base functions). Everyone respects the couple who has reached their 50th anniversary. There is an undefined power inherent in a strong relationship. If one bothers to think about what power is at all, the pureness of that power becomes the envy of anyone mature enough to realize it exists.

  4. Foundersten, you are absolutely right that we celebrate the 50 year wedding anniversary, and we scorn the person who commits infidelity. However if you want to know the accomplishments of people that where polygamist, or a bit more open with their sexuality, all you need to do it open a history book.

    Romans where committed to debauchery by our standards long before Rome fell. The Celts had several degrees of marriage, some for only a night. The Teutonic tribes took wives, but still took lovers. In the Middle East is was not until Islam rose that it was not uncommon for a wealthy man to have a harem.

    Now lets look at all these open cultures contributed? Math? Poetry? Soap? To name a few things. Most modern thought and science came from those cultures. However as I said our thoughts on modern relations have derived from modern theistic philosophy.

    Look at the evolution of marriage and the rise of Christianity. Now I am not saying there is a thing wrong with monogamy, all I am saying is look at where the concept came from and developed. What made it such a social norm, and promoted it to respected.

    On the lines of respect though other things have evolved from the repression of primal instinct. Men feel the need too spread their seed to ensure their genetic survival, so we as a people admire young men for conquest. Women however have a nine month gestation period and require stability in order to provide for cave girl when she was most vulnerable, hard to out waddle a tiger.

  5. Sexual activity says little about a culture except that they were sexually active. Some of the finest manuscripts have come from abstinent monks. Hell, every society you mentioned has gone down in flames or been largely forgotten except the Middle East, so what does that say? Nothing, really.

    Sex is purely a base function. So base it is a distraction from higher level thinking. That's not to say a good romp isn't therapeutic, but what manner of sexual thinking has lead to any great development except for maybe "The Liberator"?

    ANYONE can satisfy a sexual urge. There's no challenge in it, thus there's no power. The emotions that are often misappropriated to sex is the first source of power, but it is also fleeting. Emotions are only a step above sex and EVERYONE has emotions. No challenge in that expect to manipulate the emotions of others and to control your own. But emotional power is good only as long as a person yields it.

    Monogomous relationships that are based purely on the doctrines of religion are not far removed from the fleeting strength of emotional power. We obey the rules for fear of the wrath of God (and our wives more in some cases). In this sense, you're right. Big deal, ANYONE can follow rules.

    Still, doctrinal foundations for monogomy at least enter the realm of spirituallity even if just for the fear of God. Spirituality is (presumably) the first step beyond primal functions that would make us no different than any other animal.

    Take it a few steps further. Beyond the need to please God, beyond the need to save your soul, beyond the need to even be a part of a societally established model of good behavior. A truly meaningful monogomous relationship goes beyond the respectable discipline of doctrinal self-restraint and enters a world of synergy between two people that is simply impossible with the inclusion of anyone else.

    You might say that I am associating sex with spirituality. No. Sex is a primal function that most people must satisfy. A monogomous relationship provides that relief while contributing 100% physical energy to the emotional and spiritual connection of the couple. If anyone else is involved in that sexual energy, then it is not fully committed to either relationship and neither will ever reach its full potential.

    Spreading seed and protecting children are only the the very base elements of relationships. When we are mature enough to see far beyond these urges to procreate and protect our offspring we can glimpse at the full potential of the human condition. I truly believe a monogomous relationship can be a result much greater than the sum of its parts. Children are the physical greater sum while a strong family dynamic is the spiritual greater sum, though much more significant.

  6. I think by worrying so much about this baser instinct and desire we give it power. If we worry less about it, it just happens and its not so powerful. I also think that saying focusing 100% of your energy is more rewarding then just letting that energy go where it may. 100% is a 100% no matter where it goes. It is like asking what weighs more 100lbs of feathers, or 100lbs of lead.

  7. On the same scale, the feathers and lead make a balance. Take some feathers and put them on other scales and you'll never have that balance because 100 lbs is 100%.

    I say "balance" with great meaning. If you care to take a look, here is an essay on it:

    The essay reveals the true extent of the power I refer to through a fully committed (balanced) relatioship.

  8. Well thank you Foundersten, I think you just gave me my next piece, and something we can argue over :)