←back to thread

The Big [Censored] Theory

(pudding.cool)
1444 points feross | 1 comments | 29 Aug 22 17:34 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
wizofaus ◴[29 Aug 22 19:38 UTC] No.32642548[source]▶
Is aversion to discussion of sex a part of traditional Chinese culture? Seems odd given I'm not aware of any puritanical religions taking hold there.
replies(8): >>32642602 #>>32642649 #>>32642705 #>>32642772 #>>32643094 #>>32643637 #>>32647780 #>>32648650 #
alldayeveryday ◴[29 Aug 22 19:42 UTC] No.32642602[source]▶
Why would a culture require a puritanical religions to have an aversion to discussion of sex? And do you consider an aversion to discussion of sex to be default lacking or present in a population?
replies(1): >>32642891 #
wizofaus ◴[29 Aug 22 20:06 UTC] No.32642891[source]▶
Because why else would such an aversion arise? I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures. But I wouldn't expect aversion to talking any sex to arise spontaneously among a population that hadn't had it imposed by prior generations or from outside. We're naturally curious beings and have lots of sex (compared to other species).
replies(8): >>32643054 #>>32643059 #>>32643071 #>>32643200 #>>32643439 #>>32643870 #>>32644605 #>>32644867 #
yorwba ◴[29 Aug 22 20:24 UTC] No.32643071[source]▶
If it's not the default state, it must have arisen spontaneously among the founders of puritanical religions.
replies(1): >>32643133 #
wizofaus ◴[29 Aug 22 20:29 UTC] No.32643133[source]▶
Not necessarily, it likely happened incrementally. And it can still be rare for it to arise, it's just that once it did, something happened to make it stick.
replies(1): >>32643832 #
1. yorwba ◴[29 Aug 22 21:30 UTC] No.32643832[source]▶
I don't think "spontaneously" and "incrementally" are mutually exclusive, but anyways, you can apply your "it happened incrementally and then something happened to make it stick" theory to China as well.