←back to thread

The Big [Censored] Theory

(pudding.cool)
1444 points feross | 1 comments | 29 Aug 22 17:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.223s | 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 #
thegrimmest ◴[29 Aug 22 22:56 UTC] 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 ◴[29 Aug 22 23:02 UTC] 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 #
alldayeveryday ◴[30 Aug 22 13:20 UTC] No.32650052[source]▶
Why would something being a default imply that there is no real disadvantage to adopting the alternative position? Taking other examples, if the default is for women to have sex with only a single man, why is it implied that there are no disadvantages to women having sex with many men? At least in the way I think of defaults, the value of the default vs the alternative is an entirely different variable.
replies(1): >>32668104 #
1. wizofaus ◴[31 Aug 22 20:44 UTC] No.32668104[source]▶
It was arguably a poor choice of word. If a particular behaviour obviously has a significant selective advantage (at a cultural level) and becomes predominant it's done so on that basis. Whereas I'd think of a "default" as what would arise if you tried to start a new culture from scratch with a group of unconnected individuals with no exposure to other cultural ideas. The only defaults I'd expect to see are those driven by our biological makeup, e.g. we'd come up with a shared language that had certain basic properties, we'd adopt some sort of method of pair-bonding, we'd probably continue to have sex in private, and so forth, but to the level of specific taboos (whether it's discussion of sex, eating particular foods, wearing particular clothing etc.), I'm less convinced it makes sense to talk about defaults.