Oh wow, this is an amazing radio show.

The first segment is about a profound change in baboon behavior after a bunch of aggressive males died off. The change has stuck for 20 years now...

The 2nd segment is about how a very small, very conservative, very Republican mid-Western town elects a transgendered mayor.
http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/10/19/new-normal/

Still listening to the 3rd segment.

Intra chimpanzee group agression is 10-100 times prevalent than in humans.

Anyone can see, though we need to continue to study, that what separates us from other primates is our ability to communicate... Communicate the idea that that brute must go.

It only takes 2 betas to kick the ass of 1 alpha(or brute).

But they have to talk about it, and agree.

We, as humans, have done that for a very long time.

And we still have the vestiges of those as feelings. If not actions. We males have to suppress and repress those proto human feelings.

Unlike females, who have the leisure of not having to suppress or repress their base and reproductive instincts.

Sorry to disrupt your bible with actual facts, but chimpanzees communicate, and cooperate, with one another, to attack other groups or individuals.

Show me.

Unlike females, who have the leisure of not having to suppress or repress their base and reproductive instincts.

Trust me, we females have to suppress our instincts every month too.

And I do not believe it is such a hardship for men to behave as a basically civilised human being. Certainly not as hard as you make it sound. If it is for you then I kindly suggest that you are in the minority and perhaps have some unresolved anger issues instead of being burdened by evolutionary baggage.
I am of course far from an expert on the issue, but none of the men I know ever have to supress the urge to drag a woman into the nearest bush and rape her. And if you believe that thinking 'she is cute, I would not mind hitting the sheets with her' constitutes suppressing your urges then you do not know as much about men, women and humans as you think you do.


Eri

Show me.
That chimpanzees communicate, and cooperate, with one another, to attack other groups or individuals?

Chimpanzees team up to attack a monkey in the wild - BBC wildlife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik)

Chimps hunting a monkey (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDFh5JdYh7I)

Check out the related videos for more examples.

^ And if you're more into reading:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w1641p65141pp232/

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050209_warfrm.htm

Chimpanzees cooperate to engage in war against other chimpanzee groups, or to punish specific individuals.

[Edit] Some more reading for you:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/269/1496/1107.full.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iGfjJ4lKb1IC&oi=fnd&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v16m64m7n7736778/

To me the radio show got me to thinking about this... it seems the reason that the aggressive behavior diminished was because new baboons were accepted into the community much more quickly, 6 days instead of 20 or more.

How much aggressive human behavior is because of people not really being a part of their community?

Human and baboon societies (and instincts) are very different; I'm not really sure why you're comparing the two.

That chimpanzees communicate, and cooperate, with one another, to attack other groups or individuals?

Chimpanzees team up to attack a monkey in the wild - BBC wildlife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik)

Chimps hunting a monkey (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDFh5JdYh7I)

Check out the related videos for more examples.

Are you saying that chimps are monkeys?

Show me prevalent examples of where beta chimps or gorillas gang up on aggressive alpha males to gain access to resources, food or females.

Humans do that all the time. And use complex communication to do it. Other primates don't have that form of communication.

PET scan brain studies have 'shown' that chimp aggression centers are in the same areas where human communication centers are(Broca and Wernicke).

Human and baboon societies (and instincts) are very different; I'm not really sure why you're comparing the two.
The obvious reason is that people see bonobos as matriarchal.

Feminists can say, "Look, matriarchal society is natural. And the natural way for humans. Women must have more power in human social interactions, and men must have less."

If you read the literature, that is what is implied. That is why they are so attractive to people, women in particular.

Bonobos also have a more 'feminine' or infantile morphology than chimpanzees.

Are you saying that chimps are monkeys?
No, chimps are apes. Both monkeys and apes are primates.

You: Anyone can see, though we need to continue to study, that what separates us from other primates is our ability to communicate

Tuda: Sorry to disrupt your bible with actual facts, but chimpanzees communicate, and cooperate, with one another, to attack other groups or individuals.

You: Show me.

Me: <shows you>

The obvious reason is that people see bonobos as matriarchal.But the quote was about baboons.

Panamah is comparing baboons to humans, which is rather silly, on many levels.

But the quote was about baboons.

Panamah is comparing baboons to humans, which is rather silly, on many levels.

But not in so far as that modern baboon social structure likely is how our early ancestors survived the savanna too: by forming large groups and ganging up on any predator that comes near.

Which of course has little to do with the original subject of the quote.


Eri
(And Panamah did not compare humans to baboons. She quoted an example of radical change in behaviour in a group of them and posited the question if humans are capable of equally radical changes).

But not in so far as that modern baboon social structure likely is how our early ancestors survived the savanna too: by forming large groups and ganging up on any predator that comes near.Just because we both evolved on the savanna doesn't mean we're the same, or even similar.

There are also many other animals on the savanna that aren't even remotely like us.

And any social animal forms groups. The issue is how those groups are formed.(And Panamah did not compare humans to baboons. She quoted an example of radical change in behaviour in a group of them and posited the question if humans are capable of equally radical changes).Well, she cited a specific behavior in baboons that is a direct result of their mating strategy. If she wasn't implying that we're like baboons, then the example was irrelevant.

But the quote was about baboons.

Panamah is comparing baboons to humans, which is rather silly, on many levels.

Bah.

I was reading about bonobos recently, and was a Freudian slip, I suppose.

You are absolutely correct. Baboons are even a worse model for humans that bonobos.

Dogs have have more 'human' behaviors than baboons(after 60K years of selective breeding and domestication). And they still howl at sirens.

But it makes one wonder why humans never were able to domesticate other apes similarly. What traits do apes or monkeys possess which prevented them from obviously becoming ubiquitous pets?

No, chimps are apes. Both monkeys and apes are primates.

You: Anyone can see, though we need to continue to study, that what separates us from other primates is our ability to communicate

Tuda: Sorry to disrupt your bible with actual facts, but chimpanzees communicate, and cooperate, with one another, to attack other groups or individuals.

You: Show me.

Me: <shows you>

Intra chimpanzee group agression is 10-100 times prevalent than in humans.

Anyone can see, though we need to continue to study, that what separates us from other primates is our ability to communicate... Communicate the idea that that brute must go.

Communicating the need to curtail alpha male aggression, by way of beta male aggression, is unique to humans. That is different than all other relevant animals.

If you could show me where 2 or 3 betas dethrone an alpha silverback and then share the resources gained, I will bow to your awesomeness.

Bonobos diffuse aggression with promiscuous sex. Which is also different than gorillas and chimps. But also very unlike humans.

Communicating the need to curtail alpha male aggression, by way of beta male aggression, is unique to humans.Just one example that comes to mind recently: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090202174958.htm.

It's not only chimpanzees, either. Here's some general reading about male coalitions in primate groups: http://books.google.com/books?id=W4hnFNATyc8C&pg=RA1-PA151&lpg=RA1-PA151#v=onepage&q=&f=false

There's more about baboons teaming up to take down dominant males (the thing you say only humans do). Here's (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f16g331x4t2rt852/) one example:Four of the adult males were older, lower-ranking, long-term residents, which frequently formed coalitions to take estrous females away from the eight young, higher-ranking males.
These are quick links because I don't have time, but you get the idea: your assumptions are all wrong, as usual.

Well, she cited a specific behavior in baboons that is a direct result of their mating strategy. If she wasn't implying that we're like baboons, then the example was irrelevant.

You read something entirely different than me.

She wrote that one particular group of baboons had become less aggressive for going on 20 years now after the most aggressive males had died out. She pointed out research the average time for a new member to be accepted by the group had decreased to 6 days from 20. And she asked if perhaps human aggression was related to being kept out of a group.

I am sorry but I do not see any comparison between humans and baboons in there. At the very best you can say she wondered -if- there might be a similarity.


Eri

She wrote that one particular group of baboons had become less aggressive for going on 20 years now after the most aggressive males had died out.And why is that relevant, unless you're comparing baboons to humans in some way?

I mean, I didn't listen to the link, but the idea, as I understood it, was "hey, baboons do X under situation Y, I wonder if humans will do X too under situation Y?"

It'd be a fun study. You could even do it with children. Have them change classes temporarily. In one class the kids are instructed to make a special effort to welcome the new student and include them in their activities. In the other class... hmmm, maybe that wouldn't be ethical. A third class is the control class, no special instructions. See how many acts of aggression the newcomers display in each of the 3 environments.

Oh, it wasn't mating, it was grooming. Once the aggressive males were dead the remaining apes would start to do things like groom the newcomers. Previously the friendly apes got punished along with the newcomers if they had done that.

Back to the original topic though, we have seen huge change in human behavior. Lots of things are accepted now (at least in many places) that weren't accepted before. Overt racism is definitely dying out. There's much more acceptance of homosexuality, more acceptance of physical handicaps, and attitudes over marijuana are changing. A major shift in attitude on smoking too.

But it makes one wonder why humans never were able to domesticate other apes similarly. What traits do apes or monkeys possess which prevented them from obviously becoming ubiquitous pets?Domestication is a far more difficult process than you realize, which is why only a tiny fraction of the animals on Earth have ever been successfully domesticated.

Domestication requires a combination of factors working together, including the right diet, the right instinctive social structure (where humans can replace the dominant leader of the group), the right disposition (mild mannered, willing to group together, willing to breed in captivity, and so on), and generally also a fast growth rate. If any one fails, you will fail at domestication -- and humans have tried, and failed, in many cases.

You will never domesticate a chimpanzee, because they will always retain the wild instincts which permit them to challenge you. And when a chimpanzee decides to attacks you, he will rip off your fingers, toes, testicles, and face, and possibly kill you. Chimpanzee attacks on relatively puny humans are brutal.

Dogs are also a special case, because it's less a matter of humans overtly domesticating them and more a matter of the two co-evolving to form a symbiotic relationship. Perhaps today we consciously and selectively breed them, but I doubt that's how it happened tens of thousands of years ago.

Here's a summary of that research: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427281.500-my-little-zebra-the-secrets-of-domestication.html about domesticating foxes and feralizing rats. Cool video too!

They're now identifying the genes that are associated with tameness. I hope someday they are able to look for the same genes in people. It does appear to be genetic and not environmental, at least with the rats, as they've changed embryos between tame mothers and feral moms and there was no change.
Given enough time, more painstaking work and a bit of luck, it seems likely the researchers will identify the entire network of genes responsible for tameness and aggression in rats. "Once we have them, we will of course see if the same genes and the same physiological pathways differentiate domesticated animals from their wild relatives," says Albert. "It might be a general thing."
Man, those feral rats are really scary.

Back to my hypothesis that humans, like orangutans, get violent when they don't find acceptance, it seems like a common thread in people who snap and kill a bunch of people, like the Fort Hood guy: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/09reconstruct.html?hp

Wasn't accepted at work: At times, he complained, too, about harassment, once describing how someone had put a diaper in his car, saying, “That’s your headdress.” In another case cited by relatives, someone had drawn a camel on his car and written under it, “Camel jockey, get out!”

Wasn't really accepted at his mosque: He had few friends, and even the men he interacted with at the mosque saw him as a strange figure whom they never fully accepted into their circle.

Anyone whose brain hasn't fossilized in their skull changes their viewpoints with new information or experience, but whether they admit it or not is another matter.

Back to my hypothesis that humans, like orangutans, get violent when they don't find acceptance,Orangutans are solitary. They don't live in groups like humans do. Why would you compare them to humans?it seems like a common thread in people who snap and kill a bunch of people, like the Fort Hood guy:I guess you missed the part about sexual frustration (he was looking for a Muslim wife but couldn't find one).

Now that is a common thread in fanatical Muslim suicide bombers.

A cheap prostitute could have likely prevented this.

quote"A cheap prostitute could have likely prevented this"

I can tell tuda never hung around miltiary posts before.

(he was looking for a Muslim wife but couldn't find one).
Here's a hint: They are in the big black sacks!

Leave it to religion to come up with something as patently absurd as the burqa.

Here's a hint: They are in the big black sacks!

Leave it to religion to come up with something as patently absurd as the burqa.

*whispers* For a long time Christianity required almost the same degree of coverage for women. Plus they came up with the equally absurd notion that any woman ever born was, just because of her gender, guilty of man's fall from grace and had to be firmly controlled (read: enslaved) to prevent her from doing something similar again (unless it was at the behest of her lord and master of course, then it was not sin but divine mandate).

Let's not pull religion into this topic, as if you look at any of them they all have their patently absurd notions.


Eri

quote"Fort Hood guy"

In all fairness to that guy. While I am not condoning his actions. It seemed more or less his objections to the wars of Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Add in the fact he was going to be deployed, and there you go. Lots of guys and girls do crazy things trying to avoid getting stuck on a deployment. My favorite was this lady I know, when she started processing she was not pregnant, by the time she was ready to deploy, she was, got her out of a deployment.

I remember in the opening moments of the Iraqi invasion of a similar incident where a soldier from Ft. Campbell killed a couple of guys a few days before the invasion began. I also remember around 95' or so in Fort Lewis of a incident where a soldier was going to open fire during Pt, but, he got tackled before he got a shot off. They are isolated incidents. Happens in peace as well as deployments. As well as after deployments.

Leave it to religion to come up with something as patently absurd as the burqa.Or the burqini, for the active Muslim woman.

http://heyhijabi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/burqini.jpg

Muslims compete in the Olympics in these things, I kid you not.

In all fairness to that guy. While I am not condoning his actions. It seemed more or less his objections to the wars of Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Add in the fact he was going to be deployed, and there you go.So he went on a murderous suicide rampage to avoid being deployed?

Seems like you only need the "suicide" part to accomplish that goal.

There was a lot more to this.

I still bet you this would have never happened had he been getting laid regularly by an even remotely attractive woman. Instead of planning suicide rampages he'd be planning ways to get home early from work.

Orangutans are solitary. The OP was about how a troop of orangutans stopped rejecting outsiders. It was specifically about the behavior of a group.

http://orangutan.flevoland.to/groepen-e.html


Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm)

I still bet you this would have never happened had he been getting laid regularly by an even remotely attractive woman. Instead of planning suicide rampages he'd be planning ways to get home early from work.
Seems like that'd be part of being accepted into society, finding a mate however temporarily.

The OP was about how a troop of orangutans stopped rejecting outsiders. It was specifically about the behavior of a group.

http://orangutan.flevoland.to/groepen-e.htmlOrangutans do NOT live in groups and are solitary. There is no such thing as a troop of orangutans in the wild.

If they live near one another in some areas, it is out of necessity because their habitat (the rainforests in and around Indonesia) is being rapidly destroyed. Or because they're stuffed into cages in a zoo and forced to live together.

They do not seek acceptance, they do not form long-term male-male groups like humans do, and dominant males (with the puffy cheeks) will always be aggressive towards other males when females are receptive and will even cause hormonal changes in them to make them submissive.

Orangutan behavior is an an even worse model for human behavior than your earlier baboon example.
Humans More Related To Orangutans Than Chimps, Study Suggests (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084304.htm)Our DNA is much closer to that of the other two chimpanzees. That is a fact.

Regardless, genetic relationship alone does not determine behavior. All of the great apes are very unlike one another in their social and mating behavior, even though they are very closely related to one another. In our mating habits, we are more similar to some species of birds than to chimpanzees or bonobos, even though we are hundreds of millions of years separated from the former but only a few million years separated from the latter.

Seems like that'd be part of being accepted into society, finding a mate however temporarily.It has nothing to do with being accepted into "society".

It has to do with depositing his sperm in the appropriate female(s).

If you don't understand the very obvious difference, I don't know what to say.

There is a clear correlation between sexual frustration and the tendency to commit suicide bombings or similar acts. From an evolutionary perspective, you have little to lose by doing so.

Or perhaps you'd like to point out to me a suicide bomber who, just before committing his acts, was regularly banging attractive women in any manner he pleased.

quote"Or perhaps you'd like to point out to me a suicide bomber who, just before committing his acts, was regularly banging attractive women in any manner he pleased."

While not a suicide bomber. Nor was she banging attractive women that I know of. Sahel Kazemi, the girl who did the murder suicide on McNair, who she was regularly banging. The Fort Campbell guy, but, he wasn't banging attactive women I know of, a few weeks into the deployment. Pretty sure you could find a couple of Kamakaze pilots from Japan that were or had been prior to WW2. That is incidental.

quote"There was a lot more to this."

There always is. Whether psychological, sociological, economics, and so on. There is always a reason to kill someone. Reminds me of warcraft, sometimes the orcs were just bored.

Orangutan behavior is an an even worse model for human behavior than your earlier baboon example.

Funny thing is, though, that the oranguntans in the quoted example behaved (a little) more like humans and less like orangutans. Possibly because they lacked those excessively aggressive alpha males.


Eri

Funny thing is, though, that the oranguntans in the quoted example behaved (a little) more like humans and less like orangutans. Possibly because they lacked those excessively aggressive alpha males.It is likely that the orangutans living in the small amount of remaining rainforest, cannot find enough to eat on their own and are helping one another to survive.Wrong.

If the dominant male died, another would take his position, until all males are dead.

Then all females would die. Then the species would be extinct, at least in that region.

You cannot turn orangutans into humans, any more than you can turn humans into bonobos.

I know you want humans to be bonobos, and I agree there would be advantages to having those instincts instead of ours, but it simply isn't going to happen without restructuring our DNA or thousands of generations of directed evolution.

quote"Or the burqini, for the active Muslim woman. Muslims compete in the Olympics in these things, I kid you not."

So, others compete in different uniforms as well that often reflect the culture. Have you seen the male speed skating uniforms for the US. It is like looking at a homoerotic ****o on ice, with the tight form fitting exterior showing of every bulge and crevasse. The way they manuver for position, the drafting with an ass in the face, they might as well get some margarita salt on the rim. The gentle caress on the backside. I did read somewhere though that in some muslim cultures, due to the foreign women on their beaches wearing one piece bathing suits and bikinis, are actually allowing their women to wear those on the beach as well, but, only on the beach. Oman I think?

quote"I know you want humans to be bonobos, and I agree there would be advantages to having those instincts instead of ours, but it simply isn't going to happen without restructuring our DNA or thousands of generations of directed evolution."

What is wrong with a friendly hello sex. I do this behavior to all the new people I meet and all my friends. They usually can not wait for more socializing later. In fact, got some more socializing to do. One might say we regressed though in suppressing those instincts over the years as earlier humans did in fact exhibit some of those behaviors.

I had been watching a show on chimps though and their massaging and preening suggested as a primitive form of currency. Often what was bought was some sort of favor or trust. Like holding a baby chimp from another mother. Sexual favors, food and other sorts of things.

So, others compete in different uniforms as well that often reflect the culture.Not really, other uniforms are mainly designed for practical purposes.

I mean, covering the genitalia and female nipple is certainly a Christian hangup, but even bras and jockstraps have practical athletic purposes.What is wrong with a friendly hello sex.Nothing at all.

It's just not what we are.

For example, do you like to have sex in private? Bonobos (and other animals generally) couldn't care less. It isn't a cultural thing, it's in your genes.

Deny it all you want, but it's there.

quote"Not really, other uniforms are mainly designed for practical purposes.

I mean, covering the genitalia and female nipple is certainly a Christian hangup, but even bras and jockstraps have practical athletic purposes."

And those are not? limiting the exposure to the sun? Loose and lightweight allowing for "breathing" room? preventing rubbing and chafing as well as limiting exposure to harmful bacteria examples such as jock itch? Allowing for perspiration to evaporate naturally while just enough clothing dampness and airflow to cool the body during exercise? They have practical purposes for general exercise.

quote"For example, do you like to have sex in private?"

nah, I like a crowd cheering me on. I would actually like to go on live national television over it with interactive feedback from the viewers. But, unfortunately the way our sex offender laws are, as well as FCC laws kinda leaves those out. Does remind me though of dances with wolves when the native couple was getting it on in front of everyone without the least care in the world, or at least showed Kevin Costner observing the cultural difference.
Pretty sure the Netherlands have those live shows as well.

And those are not?Would you rather run a race in a (sport) bikini or a burqini?nah, I like a crowd cheering me on.You're unusual then. Most people, cross-culturally, prefer to have sex in private.

Otherwise we wouldn't have bedrooms.

quote"Would you rather run a race in a (sport) bikini or a burqini?"

Depends, I might wear the bikini just for shock value with thong bottoms, preferably silk like my other thongs, being a male and all. I would also assume this is on foot as well, with no water as well.Distance would be a factor as well. Short distances of up to about 2 miles, I would prefer the bikini for the aerodynamics. Long distances or just jogging around I would prefer the burqini, particularly in cold weather. It is not all that disimilar for wearing cotton sweat pants, jogging jackets and hoodies I use on occassion when I run in cold weather. On rollerblades since I far perfer those to running do to the gliding action on my joints particularly my knees, and the fuller body motion workouts I do. Speaking of that, I haven't been able to rollerblade recently without threats of trespassing enforcement, do to the misconception of the skating subcultures.

But, I would prefer the burqini to help guard against when I slide across the pavement banking on turns, hitting pebbles and stuff when I can not quite hit the points of my elbow pads or knee pads. It is an art form I have perfected of twisting your body to minimize the damage.

quote"You're unusual then. Most people, cross-culturally, prefer to have sex in private.

Otherwise we wouldn't have bedrooms."

People use their webcams, digital video feeds and streams in their bedrooms for that sort of action nowadays. Sometimes they even get paid for it. I read about one african culture that following a marriage, immediately consumate it, in front of everyone in attendence. My obligatory army stories, with the open bay barracks and such had many of these activities my fellow compatriots in arms took upon themselves to bring into the barracks. Human and human sexual intercourse where all can see isn't all that unusual. I have a friend of mine telling me about a hotel he was working at with a bunch of teenagers after prom, and a swimming pool.

People use their webcams, digital video feeds and streams in their bedrooms for that sort of action nowadays.People kill themselves too. It doesn't mean we don't have a survival instinct.

Just because you ignore your instincts in certain situations for other reasons (like, you're getting paid for it, or you have something to prove), doesn't mean you don't have the instinct in the first place.

There isn't any human culture that doesn't clearly this display this instinct either.

Chimpanzees and bonobos don't have the instinct to mate in private, at all. They are different, genetically.

quote"Just because you ignore your instincts in certain situations for other reasons"

I think you just answered that one. My instinct as a male, while this is not every males intial instinct, is to sleep with every woman possible that is capable of producing offspring, particularly the ones I find intellectually appealing, or even physical, regardless of the consequences. My brain/and or conscience tells me no. Again for reasons. Some are common sense such as to young, respect for others personal well being. While a teenager may certainly be capable, I would rather not with my brain, as I would want her to work towards a career and such, finish developing physically, have fun with her youth and stuff, never mind the whole prison and/or sex offender thing. Middle aged and older women I would not as well, even though I would find them intellectually appealing as well as attractive physically.

quote"There isn't any human culture that doesn't clearly this display this instinct either."

or we suppress it. perhaps, the earlier humans would pre societies?

quote"Chimpanzees and bonobos don't have the instinct to mate in private, at all. They are different, genetically"

many animals display the same behavior. But, many of them such as the meerkat, often raise their children in a "safer" location, where they mate is irrelevant. We know this. This is how we get bedrooms in the first place. You find it or build it as do simple animals.



edit cleaned up some things

My instinct as a male, while this is not every males intial instinct, is to sleep with every woman possible that is capable of producing offspring, particularly the ones I find intellectually appealing, or even physical, regardless of the consequences.It is every (straight) male's primary instinct, and his only true purpose. That's the reason females continue to select for our existence, in almost every species. Otherwise they don't need us.

or we suppress it. perhaps, the earlier humans would pre societies?We don't suppress it. We feel it, instinctively.

You aren't necessarily taught, "hey, you really ought to have sex in private," just as you aren't necessarily taught, "hey, you really ought to have sex outside your nuclear family."

It's just something that feels wrong. And since it's a cross-cultural phenomenon, it's very likely that our species has had these instincts for at least 50,000 years.many animals display the same behavior.Bonobos and chimpanzees mate publicly, in full view of the group. It doesn't feel wrong to them, because they don't have the same instincts that we have.

The great apes may be most closely related to one another genetically, but they are diametrically opposed to one another in terms of mating instincts, and strategies.

We don't suppress it. We feel it, instinctively.

You aren't necessarily taught, "hey, you really ought to have sex in private," just as you aren't necessarily taught, "hey, you really ought to have sex outside your nuclear family."

It's just something that feels wrong. And since it's a cross-cultural phenomenon, it's very likely that our species has had these instincts for at least 50,000 years.

It is an instinct, but it is a very weak one that the typical human can be trained out of in a weekend or less. Same as with the feeling of discomfort for public nudity. On the later there was a bbc documentary where 4 men and 4 women were randomly selected for an experiment. Over the course of two days they were required to be either nude themselves in various situations or be clothed in the presence of other nude participants for a variety of experiments. At the end of the second day 6 out of 8 were comfortable enough with nudity that they got out of the house nude and got into a cab.
Similarly there are plenty of situations where people have no problems with sex in front of others. Quite a few of those involve crimes or group pressure and can not be legally researched (other than as a criminal investigation), but a fair number of societies have extended families living in one room buildings. I can assure you that those people do not have all that many hangups with sex in the presence of others.
Simply put, humans could only begin developing hangups against public sex until after they started building houses for individual families. That is a fairly recent development on an evolutionary scale. The issue is, and never was, about shame but about controlling sexuality (i.e. society limiting access to eligible females). This is one of the key things that all religions seem to be doing, and possibly one of the reasons why we developed religions as a social institutions.


Eri

quote"Similarly there are plenty of situations where people have no problems with sex in front of others. Quite a few of those involve crimes or group pressure and can not be legally researched"

I had been trying to leave this particular recent case with a gang rape in public view on this teenager out. Sad thing about it all, no one bothered to attempt to help the girl in question. Instead my primary purpose was aside from public indecency laws and the like aside, that people really do not care where the sexual activities go on at, but, it is more of a product of society which dictates where these activities typically take place at.

It is an instinct, but it is a very weak one that the typical human can be trained out of in a weekend or less. Same as with the feeling of discomfort for public nudity.We have no instinct against public nudity. That is purely a cultural/religious artifact. Early human groups and hunter gatherer societies have traditionally been nude or partly nude in hot climates, and couldn't care less.

In that respect we are just like our ape relatives, but it has nothing to do with sex, or having sex in private.Similarly there are plenty of situations where people have no problems with sex in front of others.Because they do it for other reasons, like they have something to prove. Just like palamin's example.

It is a fact that, unlike most other animals, we are NOT indifferent to the presence of other members of our group when we have sex. We prefer to have sex in private.

That doesn't mean we can't override the instinct for other reasons, but it nevertheless exists. It does not exist in the ape relatives you're trying to compare us to.

Or perhaps you can find me proof of one human culture where this is not so, where members of the group have sex wherever they please, and couldn't care less who is else around, even their nuclear family, just like chimpanzees and bonobos.Simply put, humans could only begin developing hangups against public sex until after they started building houses for individual families.What are you talking about? You don't need a separate bedroom to have sex in private, but that is the reason that we build them. In other words, you've got your causality reversed.

Private bedrooms are merely a convenience, to satisfy an instinct. We do it for much the same reason we prefer to have bedrooms on the top level of the house, and on an elevated platform -- instinct -- albeit a much weaker instinct than the desire to have sex in private.

(Yes, I know, not ALL houses have two levels, not ALL have bedrooms on the top level, and some people sleep on the floor in very hot climates. But again, you're missing the point.)

people really do not care where the sexual activities go on at, but, it is more of a product of society which dictates where these activities typically take place atName one society where people do not care where, and in front of whom, they have sex.

I am not talking about public ritualized sex, or gang rape (which is really male bonding), or other situations where they intentionally have public sex for other reasons.

I am talking about a society where people are indifferent -- simply do not care -- whether they have sex in public or private, and do not care who is around (including their parents and children).

Much of the world's population doesn't have a bedroom for every individual, or even any individual. I wonder how they manage to procreate? It seems they get it done fairly frequently. :p

Much of the world's population doesn't have a bedroom for every individual, or even any individual. I wonder how they manage to procreate?Because they're not all locked inside one room all day? :rolleyes:

Or maybe you can pick up where Erianaiel and palamin failed, in naming me one society where the members are completely indifferent about where, and around whom, they have sex.

It's ironic, you would probably feel very uncomfortable about having sex with a random crowd around you, even though no one taught you, "hey, you should be uncomfortable having sex with people watching you," yet some sort of mental block is preventing you from reaching the obvious conclusion, that this is an innate, instinctual feeling.

quote"Or maybe you can pick up where Erianaiel and palamin failed, in naming me one society where the members are completely indifferent about where, and around whom, they have sex."

The Dionysians of ancient Greece. Or perhaps was it the Artermis supporters. Can not remember to well which ones in ancient greece had the night time drunken stuff sleep with whoever in front of everyone thing. Come to think about the ancient Greeks, they did alot of that anyways.

You'll have to ask a parent but I seem to recall hearing that young kids don't have any trouble pleasuring themselves in public until they're taught that it's something they should do privately.

You'll have to ask a parent but I seem to recall hearing that young kids don't have any trouble pleasuring themselves in public until they're taught that it's something they should do privately.Well, masturbating isn't sex; it's a totally different thing, for obvious evolutionary reasons.

But still, I have never heard of any kid who doesn't have a mental disorder indifferently masturbating in public after puberty.

(Have you, after puberty, ever publicly and openly masturbated, and simply not cared?)

There have been incidents of homeless people masturbating on Muni, but these are generally clinically insane people who refuse treatment.

The Dionysians of ancient Greece. Or perhaps was it the Artermis supporters. Can not remember to well which ones in ancient greece had the night time drunken stuff sleep with whoever in front of everyone thing. Come to think about the ancient Greeks, they did alot of that anyways.A ritualized orgy isn't an indifference to public sex. I think I already explained that.

Find me a culture where people are actually indifferent as to where they have sex.

There isn't one.

We have no instinct against public nudity. That is purely a cultural/religious artifact. Early human groups and hunter gatherer societies have traditionally been nude or partly nude in hot climates, and couldn't care less.


Sorry, but in this case I have to say you are entirely wrong.
While what is considered nudity differs between cultures, the instinct to cover yourself up kicks in at puberty. Even children who grow up as naturists (i.e. in an environment where part of the year no clothes are the social norm), go through a phase where they do not want to walk around naked. Later, if they stay within their social group, they grow more comfortable about themselves again and return to having no issues with going naked.


It is a fact that, unlike most other animals, we are NOT indifferent to the presence of other members of our group when we have sex. We prefer to have sex in private.

That doesn't mean we can't override the instinct for other reasons, but it nevertheless exists. It does not exist in the ape relatives you're trying to compare us to.


*sighs*
As I said, it is a weak instinct and easily ignored.


Or perhaps you can find me proof of one human culture where this is not so, where members of the group have sex wherever they please, and couldn't care less who is else around, even their nuclear family, just like chimpanzees and bonobos.What are you talking about? You don't need a separate bedroom to have sex in private, but that is the reason that we build them. In other words, you've got your causality reversed.


*another sigh*
That is quite a leap from what I was saying to what you claim I was saying


Eri

Sorry, but in this case I have to say you are entirely wrong.Children are always going to go through an awkward phase (especially if they are living in the West in a little nudist group, exposed to Western values), but there is no instinct against public nudity. That is easily proven if you look at many traditional societies, which run the full spectrum from total nudity to totally clothed like Westerners, and are indifferent to whatever form of dress, or lack thereof, the society adopts.

There is no society where they simply couldn't care less about where they have sex.

That's why you aren't naming one.

And when you compare that to other great apes who are totally indifferent about where they have sex, you can see a very clear distinction in instincts.

We do not have the same mating instincts as bonobos, or chimpanzees, or orangutans, or gibbons, or gorillas, or old world monkeys. Our mating habits are distinct. You cannot compare their reactions to a mating situation and assume that we will have the same reaction.

I think until they find the genes relating to these behaviors you're all just speculating.

I think until they find the genes relating to these behaviors you're all just speculating.I don't have to find the genes for sexual attraction, to know it exists. It is manifest.

Just as all those instincts that I mentioned are also manifest, and easily observable and provable, empirically.

The fact that I can't point to a chromosome and say, you see that little dot there, that's what controls your desire to have sex in private, is irrelevant. Sure, it would be nice to know, but it's not necessary to the discussion.

You'd be able to observe these instincts too, if your own cultural brainwashing didn't prevent you from doing so.