Social taboos, religion, ethics, absolute morality, God, etc.

In summary, the conversation touches on the role of religion in society and how it is often used for personal gain, the concept of social taboos and how they are created and broken, and the connection between repression and eroticism. The speakers also discuss their evolving views on religion and their belief in a higher authority.
  • #1
jackson6612
334
1
The below text is not a result of coherent thought. It consists of random pieces. I'm sure you would be able to connect them.

If there is absolute religious system, then it's won't too much exaggeration to say that I live in a far too religious atmosphere where almost every individual takes religion into whatever one does. Why they cling to religion in every matter, I don't know why but it could be anything except religious reasons. It could be for reasons of ego, personal selfish means, etc. But they try cover it with sweet candy they call religion to get acceptability.

Anything is modern or advanced which hasn't been there before and which others are going to follow, adopt, like, etc., sooner or later. Well, where I live a lot of people dislike Western culture, specifically American culture for that matter. I don't know why they do this because most of the Western practices which their ancestors disliked 100 years ago are now being followed by them. Which would simply mean that American/Western culture is more advanced because others like us are going to follow it at some point in future, there would be gradual acceptance. New ideas and trends take some time to get settled in new minds. When it comes to such matters they mostly involve religion in their talks, debates. Is there really any religion or absolute system of religious thought. I don't think there is. I'm not saying if there is any God or not. I'm sure there is but it's only that these days I'm not talking to Him! A man doesn't follow any religion. In a way religion is a blanket to hide your own selfish and narrow mindedness because it connects you with other people of your community so easily. Religion has a lot to do with social taboos. LGBT is relatively a new phenomenon and it is gradually getting acceptance in the West. It will take at least 100 more years to get the process started here in most Asian countries. You can have it written in your law but societal attitudes take years to change and no one can sue you for despising something. Obviously many of you would be more tolerant towards LGBT (by the way, even if you aren't, it wouldn't make any difference!) these days but what about those religious persons who died almost 100 years ago and simply loathed such things. Now you think about them and simply laugh. What about those persons who incriminated many others into being witches etc and burned them alive. Where was religion involved, where was Jesus involved? I think no where. Humans know how to twist religious tenets into their own advantage. As Humpty Dumpty said: The question is, which is to be master, that's all.

How are social taboos born and how do they get broken? Could you please give me an example of a social taboo which was previously considered a normal social practice and what thing did change it? And social taboos do vary from culture to culture. I think in Thailand they butcher dogs but it's disgusting even to think of doing it to man's best friend in many other countries.

Some years ago when I was in my 10s I had a very different view point of the world - humanity, religions, relationships, human values, ethics, etc. Now it has all collapsed, the fact is now I have no fixed view point of anything at all. Are there really some systems such as ethical one? I firmly believe there is some higher authority yet I don't believe in any religion. The words like "civilized human" really make me laugh. A civilized man only know how to create fuss in a civilized way.

Please let me know your opinions on this. Thanks for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Religion was a win/win for ruling classes. In most cases people are conditioned to fear and respect authority. Oaths are a good example.
Belief systems come and go, that doesn't make them any more true or false than something new. People, for the most part want to be accepted into the group, if they stray usually they're ridiculed.
I think why some cultures consider Homosexuality taboo is because it came from a time when population was scarce. That's a guess though.

As far as ethics, the golden rule. It's common sense if not biologically smart.

cheers.
 
  • #3
jackson6612 said:
How are social taboos born and how do they get broken? Could you please give me an example of a social taboo which was previously considered a normal social practice and what thing did change it?

Please read the History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault and understand the repressive hypothesis and how the intensification of religious repression resulted in a multiplication of sexual taboos and illicit pleasures. Religion and repression are prime conditions for eroticism. Sexual desire is intensified by repression and dissipates when allowed to flow freely. Foucault's contemporary, George Bataille, also studied sexuality and eroticism and found that the sex act itself was so repugnant that eroticism was necessary to attract people to do it for the sake of reproduction.

You may think that religious repression is decreasing in the west, but I think it is just shifting in ways that make it seem less directly religious. Sexual repression is a culture that gets reproduced and renewed because of the pleasure-principle behind it. It is pleasurable to repress people and be repressed and thereby to intensify sexual desire and sexual expressions. When a culture of sexual liberation emerges and flourishes, it only does so temporarily until the excitement of breaking taboos wears off, at which point repressive sexuality re-emerges to begin eliciting and intensifying desire once again.
 
  • #4
Thank you, Pan and Brain.

studied sexuality and eroticism and found that the sex act itself was so repugnant that eroticism was necessary to attract people to do it for the sake of reproduction.

What's the main difference between "sexuality" and "eroticism" and why is sex act in itself repugnant?
 
  • #5
jackson6612 said:
What's the main difference between "sexuality" and "eroticism" and why is sex act in itself repugnant?

Generally I use "sexuality" to mean cultural practices, meanings, values, etc. constructed around the sex act, reproduction, family-construction/institutionalization etc.

I use "eroticism" to refer specifically to sexual culture designed to promote the sex act as something desirable.

I don't recall Bataille discussing what exactly was repugnant about the sex act itself. You can use your imagination;) However, it does seem logical that there must be something avoidable about it or there wouldn't be a need for so much erotic culture.

If you compare it with eating, for example, it can be very difficult to teach children to eat so there is an elaborate culture of eroticizing food and the act of eating (not to mention cooking).

Insofar as culture generally consists of practices of institutionalizing and otherwise "processing" biologically-necessary activities, all cultural practices can be analyzed in terms of how they modify perceptions and approaches to such activities by, for example, emphasizing and adorning them in certain ways while encouraging/discouraging and controlling various aspects, which can result in a range of effects/consequences.
 
  • #6
brainstorm said:
I don't recall Bataille discussing what exactly was repugnant about the sex act itself. You can use your imagination;) However, it does seem logical that there must be something avoidable about it or there wouldn't be a need for so much erotic culture.

I believe those humans who find sex repugnant have some issues which borders psychopathology. Its certainly a maladaptive behavior.

brainstorm said:
If you compare it with eating, for example, it can be very difficult to teach children to eat so there is an elaborate culture of eroticizing food and the act of eating (not to mention cooking).

Evolution taught me to eat. It's one of those things which you just know how to do:P You know, I was hungry. And the miracle happened, I ate :P Sex is the same. You just know what you have to do, you don't need to be taught.

I don't know who eroticizes food in this world, there may be some, but for normal , run of the mill humans, food is just something they put in their system to extract energy from it.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
brainstorm said:
Generally I use "sexuality" to mean cultural practices, meanings, values, etc. constructed around the sex act, reproduction, family-construction/institutionalization etc.

I use "eroticism" to refer specifically to sexual culture designed to promote the sex act as something desirable.

I don't recall Bataille discussing what exactly was repugnant about the sex act itself. You can use your imagination;) However, it does seem logical that there must be something avoidable about it or there wouldn't be a need for so much erotic culture.

If you compare it with eating, for example, it can be very difficult to teach children to eat so there is an elaborate culture of eroticizing food and the act of eating (not to mention cooking).

Insofar as culture generally consists of practices of institutionalizing and otherwise "processing" biologically-necessary activities, all cultural practices can be analyzed in terms of how they modify perceptions and approaches to such activities by, for example, emphasizing and adorning them in certain ways while encouraging/discouraging and controlling various aspects, which can result in a range of effects/consequences.

Thanks a lot, Brain. I have a few follow up questions.

You take sex as a simple act of reproduction, an important condition to set up a new family unit. Right? And this is encouraged by general public which is obviously culture. To you 'eroticism' is something which is done for the sake of sex only. Such as stripping clubs, or perhaps other acts which are not necessary for reproductions. Right? Sex itself covers a big part of eroticism. People not marry to set up a family unit or reproduce only but also they need to vent their sexual desire. They engage in sex acts which do not in reproduction. A man who doesn't find his wife attractive anymore and do not want to have sex with her would probably go to prostitutes, extramarital affair, or strip clubs. Obviously, these things are frowned by general public. Do you consider these practices integral part of eroticism? I don't think sex is repugnant for normal individuals; it's just that some would find some sexual acts repugnant and this vary from person to person.

Sorry, Brain, I don't really understand the red parts. I eat because it's programmed in me. Yes, I would certainly never eat some foods. Such as snake, dogs' meat, etc.

I hope you won't mind further explanation on this. Thank you very much for all the help and time.
 
  • #8
jackson6612 said:
. A man who doesn't find his wife attractive anymore and do not want to have sex with her would probably go to prostitutes, extramarital affair, or strip clubs. Obviously, these things are frowned by general public.

Could it be that Kathleen Vohs is right and sex is valuable female resource for social exchange ? And the reason those things (prostitution, affairs, pornography, whatever) are frowned by general public, especially by women, is because they do disturb the market of "sexual economics" ?

Surely her position is supported by both evolutionary and social perspectives.

http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdf [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
brainstorm said:
I don't recall Bataille discussing what exactly was repugnant about the sex act itself. You can use your imagination;) However, it does seem logical that there must be something avoidable about it or there wouldn't be a need for so much erotic culture.

For me that's putting things on the head. Erotic culture was built _around_ an object of desire, not to _make_ sex act object of desire. Besides, if the problem is that sex act is repugnant, we would not - as humans - survive to the moment we were able to invent erotic culture; we would die out much earlier.
 
  • #10
DanP said:
I believe those humans who find sex repugnant have some issues which borders psychopathology. Its certainly a maladaptive behavior.
This sounds like a statement from a culture of compulsory eroticism.

Evolution taught me to eat. It's one of those things which you just know how to do:P You know, I was hungry. And the miracle happened, I ate :P Sex is the same. You just know what you have to do, you don't need to be taught.
Such a simplistic mechanistic view of human behavior is so ignorant, I barely have the patience to respond. What role do you think culture plays in human behavior and evolution if life was as mechanistic as you claim?

I don't know who eroticizes food in this world, there may be some, but for normal , run of the mill humans, food is just something they put in their system to extract energy from it.
You must be joking. How many humans do you know that will consume any food that is not rotting? Practically everyone has an aesthetic filter for food and most are incredibly complex and built on years of subconscious response to advertising, particular recipes, etc. Ever seen Eddie Murphy "Raw?" He talks about how he felt about homemade hamburgers as a kid in comparison to McDonalds hamburgers. Where does that preference come from except food-eroticism in advertising, preparation/recipe, and presentation?


jackson6612 said:
Thanks a lot, Brain. I have a few follow up questions.

You take sex as a simple act of reproduction, an important condition to set up a new family unit. Right? And this is encouraged by general public which is obviously culture. To you 'eroticism' is something which is done for the sake of sex only. Such as stripping clubs, or perhaps other acts which are not necessary for reproductions. Right? Sex itself covers a big part of eroticism. People not marry to set up a family unit or reproduce only but also they need to vent their sexual desire.
I don't get your point here. You seem to be dissecting the details to prove that all sex isn't geared toward reproduction. That's true, but I think it is only relatively recently that a functional view of dissipating sexual energy has developed. Before that, non-reproductive sex was considered a waste of energy at best. Regardless of why/how it's used, eroticism is logically a means of adding allure to the sex act for stimulation of relationships that lead to reproduction and childrearing. The marital tradition of a white bridal gown, for example, symbolizes purity because that is supposed to stimulate the groom to cherish his bride as his and his alone.

They engage in sex acts which do not in reproduction. A man who doesn't find his wife attractive anymore and do not want to have sex with her would probably go to prostitutes, extramarital affair, or strip clubs. Obviously, these things are frowned by general public. Do you consider these practices integral part of eroticism? I don't think sex is repugnant for normal individuals; it's just that some would find some sexual acts repugnant and this vary from person to person.
I think most eroticism is transparent for you; i.e. you just assume your perception of sex is transparent/neutral instead of seeing how erotic culture subtly builds sex up for people before they ever even know what it is. When allowed, for example, little boys like to wear makeup and paint their nails, etc. because it is exciting to adorn their body and see themselves looking special. Then, as they get older they are taught that it is "natural" for females to adorn their bodies and "unnatural" for males to. This, in turn, stimulates the idea that females are natural sex/lust-objects and men are pursuers of such objects. Without all these structuring institutions, would sex be that erotic? If humans had sex indiscriminately like certain monkeys, sex would probably be about as erotic as going to the bathroom.

Sorry, Brain, I don't really understand the red parts. I eat because it's programmed in me. Yes, I would certainly never eat some foods. Such as snake, dogs' meat, etc.
You're just not aware of the role food-eroticism plays in constructing your appetite as you experience it.

I hope you won't mind further explanation on this. Thank you very much for all the help and time.
I don't know where to begin. You and the other poster are over-mechanistic and reductionist. You don't seem to see how strongly culture affects your perceptions and experiences. You just seem to attribute the effects of culture to objects themselves, such as when a teenager believes s/he is really wearing the most fabulous clothes ever designed without a clue that in 5 years s/he will think they are the ugliest garments ever designed.

Borek said:
For me that's putting things on the head. Erotic culture was built _around_ an object of desire, not to _make_ sex act object of desire. Besides, if the problem is that sex act is repugnant, we would not - as humans - survive to the moment we were able to invent erotic culture; we would die out much earlier.
Eroticism probably always existed as a more or less natural part of sex. If it hadn't, how would primitive humans or animals become interested in copulating? Why would a human or other animal just think, "hmm, I'm going to have an orgasm and I'm going to do it through coitus?" There has to be some allure to doing it that way. Institutionalized eroticism probably just emerged as an enhancement of pre-institutionalized attraction cues. Most institutions evolve as re-presentations of pre-institutional social behaviors/habits/perceptions, no?
 
  • #11
brainstorm said:
Eroticism probably always existed as a more or less natural part of sex. If it hadn't, how would primitive humans or animals become interested in copulating? Why would a human or other animal just think, "hmm, I'm going to have an orgasm and I'm going to do it through coitus?" There has to be some allure to doing it that way. Institutionalized eroticism probably just emerged as an enhancement of pre-institutionalized attraction cues. Most institutions evolve as re-presentations of pre-institutional social behaviors/habits/perceptions, no?

That would probably call for more precise definition of eroticism. I think on the basic level it is a purely biological need, basic instinct so to speak. Earthworms feel urge to copulate, does it mean eroticism exists in their population?
 
  • #12
Borek said:
That would probably call for more precise definition of eroticism. I think on the basic level it is a purely biological need, basic instinct so to speak. Earthworms feel urge to copulate, does it mean eroticism exists in their population?

I don't know much about earthworm ethology, but I would guess that worm-senses are capable of receiving some kind of signals that indicate when another worm is fertile (or itself since worms can auto-copulate, I believe). I doubt, however, that worms do anything to intentionally emphasize or draw attention to their fertility in the interest of luring or controlling sex. But then there must be something that prevents them from inseminating randomly, assuming they conserve semen while searching for an adequate receiver.
 
  • #13
brainstorm said:
But then there must be something that prevents them from inseminating randomly, assuming they conserve semen while searching for an adequate receiver.

Yes, that is coming the from the outstanding eroticism culture of worms. They watch porn, and they learn how to copulate from it, then they doit. They look for 90/60/90 lady worms. And yes, worms learn to eat by watching Tony Bourdain's shows on travel channel. It was impossible for them before, for they didn't know how. Some of them are disgusted by sex and hence they don't reproduce, because they did read Battaile.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
DanP said:
Yes, that is coming the from the outstanding eroticism culture of worms. They watch porn, and they learn how to copulate from it, then they doit. They look for 90/60/90 lady worms. And yes, worms learn to eat by watching Tony Bourdain's shows on travel channel. It was impossible for them before, for they didn't know how. Some of them are disgusted by sex and hence they don't reproduce, because they did read Battaile.
That's funny but where did it come from? Did something about the way the thread was going provoke this outburst or did you just get a funny vision of worms engaging in human-like eroticism?
 
  • #15
brainstorm said:
That's funny but where did it come from? Did something about the way the thread was going provoke this outburst or did you just get a funny vision of worms engaging in human-like eroticism?

It comes from the knowledge that behaviorism died in 1960. It was an atrocious and deeply flawed step ( but some say necessary) on the quest to understand human nature. Skinner, Watson and others, so influential in psychology and so wrong at the same time. But at least, they founded the foundation of modern psychology. It was a step ahead from Freudian delusions. Statements like yours are obsoleted by 70 years. This was written by Zing Yang Kuo, a behaviorist, in 1929:

Behavior is not a manifestation of hereditary factors, nor can it be expressed in terms of heredity. [It is] a passive and forced movement mechanically and solely determined by the structural pattern of the organism and the nature of environmental forces... All our sexual appetites are the result of social stimulation. The organism possesses no ready-made reaction to the other sex, any more than it possesses innate ideas.

It makes you laugh in tears. Besides ignoring more than 1*10^9+ years of sexual reproduction without which we wouldn't be here today, it makes me wonder if that guy ever touched a woman . We don't need culture to copulate or eat. Surely, sociocultural aspects can and do influence attitudes regarding sexuality and culinary practices, but that's all.

You use words like "over-mechanistic and reductionist". Many ppl do, but most of them have no idea what they are talking about. Its somehow ironic that you present behaviorist arguments in the same post you use words like "reductionism", for there was no other approach to psychology more reductionist than behaviorism. To each his own :P
 
Last edited:
  • #16
DanP said:
It comes from the knowledge that behaviorism died in 1960. It was an atrocious and deeply flawed step ( but some say necessary) on the quest to understand human nature. Skinner, Watson and others, so influential in psychology and so wrong at the same time. But at least, they founded the foundation of modern psychology. It was a step ahead from Freudian delusions.
Where did you get that I am a behaviorist? Behaviorism takes a very superficial view of behavior and I argue against behaviorist-type thinking all the time. Still, I don't know where you get that Behaviorism followed Freudianism chronologically, except in the sense that I believe there was a backlash against Freudianism that resulted in a return to behaviorism. Freud wrote, I believe, in the 1930s whereas behaviorists like Skinner were popular around the turn of the century, I think. No matter, the point is not who preceded whom but how the approaches are related. Freudianism is, imo, basically the behaviorism of egoism. Instead of direct rewards/punishments to manipulate behavior, Freudianism uses ego rewards/punishment (i.e. forms of praise and shame) to socialize social conformity. But what does any of this have to do with the topic being discussed?

It makes you laugh in tears. Besides ignoring more than 1*10^9+ years of sexual reproduction without which we wouldn't be here today, it makes me wonder if that guy ever touched a woman . We don't need culture to copulate or eat. Surely, sociocultural aspects can and do influence attitudes regarding sexuality and culinary practices, but that's all.
This is a statement without grounding. I can't even tell what this writer means with the word, "culture." To me, this quote is like saying no water is needed to swim. How could people eat or copulate without some method, either pre-learned or ad hoc? If gorillas eat by foraging for leaves, that is a culture of eating. What form of eating or copulation is not a culture of eating or copulation?

You use words like "over-mechanistic and reductionist". Many ppl do, but most of them have no idea what they are talking about. Its somehow ironic that you present behaviorist arguments in the same post you use words like "reductionism", for there was no other approach to psychology more reductionist than behaviorism. To each his own :P
You defined and labeled me as behaviorist without providing grounds. Then you go on to criticize my language-use without presenting any substantive discussion of the terms, how I was using them, or what your critique is other than calling me a hypocrite according to your behaviorism-strawman. Are you just accustomed to content-less posturing or is this a trolling tactic?
 
  • #17
brainstorm said:
Where did you get that I am a behaviorist? ...... But what does any of this have to do with the topic being discussed?

walk like a duck, quack like a duck. You throw exactly the same statements as did behaviorists regarding sex. It was 1930 all over again. Perhaps audit a course in the neurobiology of sexual behavior at your local university ? It may help widen the perspective.
 
Last edited:

1. What are social taboos and why do they exist?

Social taboos are societal norms or behaviors that are considered unacceptable or forbidden. They can vary among different cultures and can be based on religion, ethics, or tradition. These taboos exist to maintain social order and promote harmony within a society.

2. How does religion influence social taboos?

Religion plays a significant role in the creation and enforcement of social taboos. Many religious beliefs and practices dictate certain behaviors that are considered taboo, such as premarital sex or consuming certain foods. These taboos are often seen as a way to maintain the moral values of a particular religion.

3. What is the difference between ethics and absolute morality?

Ethics refers to a set of moral principles or values that guide an individual's behavior and decision-making. Absolute morality, on the other hand, refers to the belief that there are universal moral principles that are true for all people, regardless of their culture or beliefs. While ethics can vary among individuals and cultures, absolute morality is seen as constant and unchanging.

4. Do all religions have the same concept of God?

No, different religions have varying beliefs and interpretations of God. Some religions believe in a single deity, while others have multiple gods or follow a more abstract concept of a higher power. Additionally, the characteristics and expectations of God can also differ among religions.

5. How does the concept of God relate to absolute morality?

For some religions, God is seen as the ultimate source of absolute morality. The belief is that God sets the standard for what is morally right and wrong, and humans must follow these guidelines to lead a virtuous life. However, the concept of absolute morality can also exist without the belief in a higher power for those who follow secular ethical systems.

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
32
Views
9K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
58
Views
13K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
45
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
28K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
Back
Top