←back to thread

1444 points feross | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
wizofaus ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
thegrimmest ◴[] No.32644605[source]
> I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures

There are loads of sensible "defaults" for human cultures. Aversion and disgust at the practices of unfamiliar out-groups is one - keeps us from getting their diseases. Practices assuring paternity are another - males that are indifferent to who's children they raise aren't very well selected for. Risk aversion in, and preference for protection of, child-bearing females by the group is a third - harm to these females disproportionately affects the ability of the group to reproduce and pass its genes. There are many, many others, and we have many of them in common with our animal relatives.

replies(1): >>32644665 #
wizofaus ◴[] No.32644665[source]
I'd agree with those (I just don't necessarily think of them as "defaults", which implies there's no real disadvantage to adopting alternative shared cultural understandings). And I'd suggest that an aversion to talking about sex is surely the opposite of a practice assuring paternity?
replies(2): >>32644758 #>>32650052 #
1. thegrimmest ◴[] No.32644758[source]
Well, it's complicated, but I'd agree with a below poster that it seems like the "implementation" of these practices tends towards limiting opportunities for females to mate outside of their designated partners. This includes:

1. Physically isolating females from males.

2. Conditioning females so they won't seek these opportunities.

In combination, these factors seem to taboo any discussion of sex at all in mixed male/female company. It seems our standards for what is "family friendly" grows out of these taboos. You'll notice that in exclusively male company discussing sex is generally much less taboo.

With the obviously problematic morality aside, this does seem like the most effective approach to assuring paternity, particularly in small, low-tech, tribal groups.

Edit: There's also the need to limit sexual violence, which also seems to be a factor in tabooing discussion of sex in mixed company.