Societal Assumptions

Or Pseudo Science

In the next few days I will be adding a recommended reading list, until then I will suggest to the reader that they check out the book "Sex at Dawn".




It has always amazed me that "Scientists" especially "Social Scientists" read into their studies their own prejudice. We non scientists expect the professionals to do their job and to do it as accurately as possible, this means that scientists should challenge their basic assumptions, and discover if they are right. The social scientist however challenges nothing, lest he rock his own boat. Take for example the popular views on monogamy and incest. The assumption is that Humans are monogamous, and that incest is unnatural. Is this however what the facts prove?

Take monogamy. Monogamy is so natural that the average marriage lasts seven years, the individuals involved then turn around and within 2 years get remarried. This is so chronic that it has been given a name, serial monogamy. These scientist then ignore any culture that is not monogamous, and further never bother to ask the question of is monogamy natural or unnatural. This ruse has worked so well that it has been entirely suppressed that Roman and Greek men shared their wives with friends. Further they go on to assume that men and women only have a limited amount of love. Does the love of one child come at the expense of another? Does the love of mom come at the expense of dad? How about he love of siblings or cousins? Ah but this is different. The question to be asked is why is it different? Keep in mind that because is not a valid answer.

While our society tries to escape from the traditional corrupt Christian values it becomes bound ever tighter by them. Sex and Masturbation are still considered dirty. Sex should always be fun, and why should one not want to have sex with a close friend, and why should it be anything other than the desire to express ones deepest feelings toward that individual? Instead our culture clings to the idea that sex for any reason other than making babies is bad. Does this mean that their are not individuals who buck this convention? Not at all, I am here speaking about society as a whole. What is still worse however is that in an attempt to escape from this disgusting cultural view most people take it to its opposite evil. Have sex with anyone and everyone. In doing this they do not liberate sex from its prison, instead they devalue it. If you are willing to have sex with everyone or almost everyone than what value can it have. Masturbation is much cleaner.

Instead one should be neither greedy nor miserly with sex. Spend it wisely on those whom you value, who bring joy to your life. Sex is the ultimate way of saying to someone "I am glad that you are in my life." Do not bind your mate to you with chains but instead encourage them to share their love with those who deserve it. Love like children's laughter was not meant to be dulled out like pennies to beggars, it should not be locked up in dungeons. Instead we are taught that love is limited, that to love more than one person at a time is a sin. That you cannot love two women or two men at once. Can I not love my mate Brian and my mate Maureen (not their real names) differently. My love of him does not diminish my love of her in any way, nor vice verse.

Or and this is a better example incest. Is it not amusing in a very sad sort of way to see the social scientists say incest is unnatural, and yet they cannot come up with a reason why it is so common. Yes I said common. I here am not making a moral judgment on the fact that it is common, I am not saying it is good or bad. Only that it is common. They say that we have a built in bias against people that look too closely to us, ignoring that children can look radically different from one another, or even from their parents. They even go so far as to ignore that incest has no universal definition, but rather varies widely in place in time. In some places and time relations between a father and daughter are not incest while between mother and son are, the converse is true. Even today in the United States one may marry a cousin in one state, and moving to another state violates incest laws. Before contraception laws against incest were practical. While everyone has the right to do with their own life as they please, no one has the right to harm children.

It is a cross species truism that animals have no problem breeding with their siblings or offspring. It took the mind of man to see the potential hazards and devise a way to avoid such hazards. Again leaving aside the moral question for a moment, we raise our children to have our values, and to seek mates and partners with values similar if not the same as ours. Given this fact does incest not have a certain logic to it? If a female offspring is looking for a mate, who could be closer to her value set than those who were raised to have that value set, or who raised her to have that value set. Again it took a human mind to say "there is a higher chance of defective children born of these couplings.".

While I myself have never had incestuous feelings towards my parents or siblings, this is due to the radical difference between value sets. Even as a young child of 10 or 11 I began to have a different world view than my parents, by the time I was 12 I discovered my parents believed the earth was only a few thousand years old. My siblings though personality wise close to each other, are nothing like me. Understanding how different we were excluded any opportunity.

Even among those who have never participated in incest studies show that a high number have fantasized and or desired an incestuous relationship. So why do even Atheist scientist hold to these obviously false views? Don't rock the boat. After all who wants to stand up in front of everyone and say "umm ya you know what you've been told all your life.... well its not true, these people made it up."