To any Psychologists out there: I need some help in answering a question on my test. Even if your not a psychologist feel free to respond to the question. Given that (one can presume) sexual activity is fun, private, and discreet, it would seem probable that, other than the two participants, no one would be concerned with the sexual activity of any two adults. But such is not the case. All cultures (well over a thousand have been catalogued) prefer sexual activity to occurr within the confines of marriage. Please explain to the reader (instructor, teacher) a reasonable explanation why there is social pressures from the community to restrict sexual activity to marriage. It would be nice to include Garret Hardin's "The Tragedy of the commons" and Marvin Harris's theroy on cultural evolution. P.S I know it seems hard, but any help will do.
Social pressures exists to keep sexual relationships inside marriage because of the societal implications of extra-marital sex. Unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases would be basically unheard of if all sexual activity was limited to marriage.
restrict sexual activity to marriage. does that mean. no sex for married couples? or no sex before marriage or out of marriage?
this seems simple enough: Tragedy of the Commons Free love results in children. And since men love to reproduce, but do not have to bear the burden of raising them (as per free love), men would keep having sex (an enjoyable act) and reproduce with as many women as possible. The women are unable to raise children on their own, especially in large numbers (a consequence of free love). The cost of raising children then falls to the society at large. As in the tragedy of the commons, the benefit from each sexual relationship is received by each individual, while the cost of sexual relationships (i.e. childrearing) is borne by society. And since child-rearing is considered a critical activity for the success of each society, and yet resources will not necessary be allocated to support it, free love results in a suboptimal societal outcome, a population explosion consisting of neglected kids. The same argument can be made for STDs. If you are already a carrier of a STD, having sex with others still is beneficial to you, since the cost (of contracting the disease) is borne by your partner. If free love were to reign, there should be a rise in STD transmission, resulting in a suboptimal societal outcome. Caveats: Modern forms of contraception has overturns this argument to a large degree. Another argument against free love, that of anonymous fatherhood, has already been resolved through technology (DNA testing). Cultural Evolution: Since the abovementioned arrangement (free love) results in suboptimal social and economic conditions (particularly prior to modern science), it naturally becomes taboo for most cultures, since cultures naturally evolve to effect optimal social and economic conditions. Here STDs become more of an issue. The possibility of contracting a STD yourself presents not so much an externality, but more a personal health risk to each member of society and hence modern cultures can be expected to encourage limitation of the number of sexual partners. Same caveats as listed above. Hope that helps!
Religion, Covenant man and woman..., Holy Spirit conjoining the two... Insert argument from Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body... Just thought I'd represent for those not persuaded by the religion of psychology...
Do you really think this is true? Is so why still so many STD's and unwanted pregnancies (abortions). The number of abortions daily alone proves that this argument has not been overturned.
hey, not trying to get into a moral debate here. just answering the man's questions. as with any well-thought out answer, both sides of the issue needs to be examined for the man to get full marks. regarding contraception. i think having some protection is better than having none at all. and plenty of feminists and anthropologists will tell you that modern contraception has vastly changed the world's attitudes towards sex. it ain't called the sexual revolution for nothing... as for personal opinion, i support exclusive sexual relationships for all of the above reasons, and because i believe that it is hard to romantically love more than one girl at a time and i believe strongly in family. but deep down inside, i know that without societal, ethical, health, economical concerns, i'd shag plenty more women than i do now simply for pleasure.
I think people in different cultures realized that "free love" leads to suffering. There is no real love, communication, or closeness. Now what sucks is that this understanding becomes a "commandment", a rule not truly understood by the enforcers, so it loses it's meaning. It then becomes suppressive rebelled against by those who see it a such.
