Re: virus: Sexuality

Steve (
Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:40:26 +0800

ken wrote:

>So - i guess i am wondering if we are primarily a monogamous
>species by genetic inclination (i doubt it) or if the church
>has been *extremely* effective in the control of our sexuality
>(even those of us who _DO NOT_ believe). If so, will this
>collapse (like it seemed to start to do in the 60's, or will
>it get even stronger (the pendulum effect)?

With respect to controlling our sexuality, will the influence of the church
collapse? My answer to this is both yes and no. Yes, because western
religions are so blatantly ignorant of how consciousness works - they are
stuck firmly in that silly notion of brain-as-computer and as such, don't
understand the role of choice in shaping personality. No, because there are
increasing numbers of people looking to eastern religions in order to
comprehend mind and the role of choice (eg, look at Hindu references to the
notion of "kharma"). Let me put my own spin on this.

We in this memetics group know that memes are spread from person to person.
It is only a tiny leap to become aware of the fact that the spread of memes
can be modelled on the principles of chaos theory. That is, there are
memetic attractors that motivate people to imitate certain types of memes. A
role model is an attractor that inspires imitation among adherents. To be
more precise, there is such a thing as a *type* of person. In one of my
earlier posts, I wrote that the personality of a person is itself also an
attractor, that draws in certain types of memes that are consistent with
that personality. (eg, an artist will attract memes that are very different
to the memes being attracted by an accountant. A rapist is unlikely to be a
regular church-goer, unlike a nun). What are the implications? The
personality attractor of a person *must* be consistent with the memetic
attractor of the culture to which that person belongs. If not, then this
person will be designated as insane.

In an earlier post, someone mentioned one of the commandments to "love the
other as yourself". I perceive this not as a mechanical thing that
"conveniently" happens to lead to a well behaved society, but as the
deliberate and purposeful providing of initial conditions (chaos theory) to
enable moral personality attractors to evolve throughout the culture - that
is, to enable people to *become* moral, and not just *act* morally.

The bottom line is this. If there is such a thing as a *type* of person,
then there is such a thing as a "slut". What we need to ask ourselves is,
what are the consequences of our choices? How do our choices reflect on what
is happening to our culture? What are the consequences of a sexually
permissive society? What is the role of pornography and feminism in the low
opinions that men and women are learning to have of each other? What is the
role of sexual permissiveness in the trivialisation and banalisation of our
western cultures?


Ken, the rest of your post assumes memes to be isolated units of information
that are independent of the observer (a la mode the western mind-set),
instead of concepts of meaning that are inextricably and intimately linked
to a very subjective observer and the observer's prior experiences (eg,
hinduism, buddhism and kharma). You've raised a very interesting question.

>As a new thread i am wondering what people think will happen
>in human sexuality in the near future (say 10-25 years, altho
>longer term ideas might also be interesting).
>It seems to me that virtually all the restraints on sexuality
>are due to religious admonitions to avoid it except under very
>special circumstances (e.g., no sex if you are unmarried, no
>sex outside of marriage, no sex between same sex partners, etc,
>etc). While these rules probably made good sense 2000 years ago
>(or even 50 years ago) they seem to be quite antiquated to me
>now. With modern birth control we seem to be quite able to
>separate pleasure from reproduction. Altho AIDS is a terrible
>decease we seem to be able to overcome it with various types of
>sexual activities and/or protections (in any case it probably
>does not even begin to compare to syphilis in numbers of people
>Also, it seems to me odd that religions (at least Christianity)
>have attacked masturbation with such vehemence. In terms of
>safety to the community and the individual, it seems to quite
>effective (i don't think anyone ever died of it...). But the
>prohibition seems to be greatest for this activity (ask any young
>person if they are a virgin - that's potentially embarrassing - ask
>if they masterbate - that's offensive).