Comments on: On The Origins of Sexual Prohibitions http://savageminds.org/2006/01/20/on-the-origins-of-sexual-prohibitions/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Wed, 23 May 2012 16:50:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: hardcore porno http://savageminds.org/2006/01/20/on-the-origins-of-sexual-prohibitions/comment-page-1/#comment-130723 hardcore porno Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:12:48 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=370#comment-130723 hardcore porno... Trackback... hardcore porno…

Trackback…

Report this comment

]]> By: koop viagra http://savageminds.org/2006/01/20/on-the-origins-of-sexual-prohibitions/comment-page-1/#comment-121133 koop viagra Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:16:32 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=370#comment-121133 koop viagra... Trackback... koop viagra…

Trackback…

Report this comment

]]> By: Bitch | Lab » Incest, sex, taboos — oh me, oh my! http://savageminds.org/2006/01/20/on-the-origins-of-sexual-prohibitions/comment-page-1/#comment-37460 Bitch | Lab » Incest, sex, taboos — oh me, oh my! Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:11:01 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=370#comment-37460 [...] p.s. Also, read a response by a real anthropologist at Savage Minds. Theory, Sex & Sexuality, Gender : Bitch 11:44 am : : [...] [...] p.s. Also, read a response by a real anthropologist at Savage Minds. Theory, Sex & Sexuality, Gender : Bitch 11:44 am : : [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Bill Benzon http://savageminds.org/2006/01/20/on-the-origins-of-sexual-prohibitions/comment-page-1/#comment-3048 Bill Benzon Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:50:25 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=370#comment-3048 Though it says nothing about incest, you might take a look at Stephen Mithen's latest book, <i>The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body.</i> Mithen details a fair number of "stages" between apekind and humankind, placing something like music before language in the process -- a move suggested by the sainted Darwin himself. Note that I've got a vested interest in that argument since I've made it myself, in <i>Beethoven's AnvilL Music in Mind and Culture.</i> There are all sorts of rules and they need not be expressible in language. Though it says nothing about incest, you might take a look at Stephen Mithen’s latest book, The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body. Mithen details a fair number of “stages” between apekind and humankind, placing something like music before language in the process — a move suggested by the sainted Darwin himself. Note that I’ve got a vested interest in that argument since I’ve made it myself, in Beethoven’s AnvilL Music in Mind and Culture.

There are all sorts of rules and they need not be expressible in language.

Report this comment

]]> By: Ozma http://savageminds.org/2006/01/20/on-the-origins-of-sexual-prohibitions/comment-page-1/#comment-3044 Ozma Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:45:40 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=370#comment-3044 Hey Comet Jo, actually I totally agree with you, both about developmental plasticity (in the evo-devo relationship I definitely believe devo is where it is at) and about the difficulty of drawing a bright line -- on the basis of anything -- between humans and other animals. However, I think if we *are* going to look for the origins of the special features of human society/culture, using L-S's idea about the importance of rules is a good place to start (how you'd ever find that in the physical or archaeological record is another question....) Hey Comet Jo,
actually I totally agree with you, both about developmental plasticity (in the evo-devo relationship I definitely believe devo is where it is at) and about the difficulty of drawing a bright line — on the basis of anything — between humans and other animals. However, I think if we *are* going to look for the origins of the special features of human society/culture, using L-S’s idea about the importance of rules is a good place to start (how you’d ever find that in the physical or archaeological record is another question….)

Report this comment

]]> By: Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Wild Thoughts: Gender Edition http://savageminds.org/2006/01/20/on-the-origins-of-sexual-prohibitions/comment-page-1/#comment-3042 Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Wild Thoughts: Gender Edition Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:17:43 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=370#comment-3042 [...] About « On The Origins of Sexual Prohibitions [...] [...] About « On The Origins of Sexual Prohibitions [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Comet Jo http://savageminds.org/2006/01/20/on-the-origins-of-sexual-prohibitions/comment-page-1/#comment-3039 Comet Jo Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:13:58 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=370#comment-3039 Some thoughts: I’m a bit dubious about this whole question of “what inaugurates humanity”—it seems so inextricably culture/value bound: regulating sex—didn’t Freud or some other eminent Victorian say something like that. What about the first time someone returned (or gave) a gift, or the first time someone killed for honor rather than immediate material gain? Seems best to think about the idea of a “human” as an ideal type, and think about what sorts of definitions gives us the most analytic purchase. (That said, i like Ozma’s “rules in general” idea, even if I strongly suspect that were we to invent a time machine and try to do the research we would have a hard time identifying when exactly “people” (or whatever you want to call them) were acting in terms of a rule. Ideas about the “fundamental asocial-ness” of the sex drive also make me a bit suspicious. As I read Annette Weiner, seduction is the metaphor and model of all social relations in the Trobriands. And maybe the fact that the sex drive “even particularly delights” in breaking rules should be a clue here: isn’t rule-breaking, resistance, and rebellion as culturally structured and variable as order? Oh and wait, this business of the father’s not knowing paternity—isn’t that the basis of Hawaiian kinship terminology according to Morgan? Actually, Trobrianders are also said not to recognize paternity, so perhaps Godelier’s scheme can be rescued if we don’t consider them human. And the male parental care thing—isn’t that an argument Desmond Morris made in The Naked Ape? (He called it pair-bonding; it explains why human breasts "mimic" buttocks.) On a less sarcastic note: why should we assume that the behaviors that result in what we call “incest avoidance” in apes are somehow the product of natural selection, while the behaviors involved in what we call “homosexuality” in apes are not? Perhaps these behaviors are the product of the same generalized capacities for social learning. There is a whole revolution going on in biology, where it is becoming clear that one can’t really talk about the evolution of “traits” without understanding something about the ontogeny of those traits—the whole distinction between “instinctual” and “learned” behavior is exploded in this work, as as is the Dawkins-Wilson et al idea that evolution is primarily about the genome. The authoritative work on this is Developmental Plasticity and Evolution by Mary Jane West-Eberhard. by Comet Jo Some thoughts:

I’m a bit dubious about this whole question of “what inaugurates humanity”—it seems so inextricably culture/value bound: regulating sex—didn’t Freud or some other eminent Victorian say something like that. What about the first time someone returned (or gave) a gift, or the first time someone killed for honor rather than immediate material gain? Seems best to think about the idea of a “human” as an ideal type, and think about what sorts of definitions gives us the most analytic purchase. (That said, i like Ozma’s “rules in general” idea, even if I strongly suspect that were we to invent a time machine and try to do the research we would have a hard time identifying when exactly “people” (or whatever you want to call them) were acting in terms of a rule.

Ideas about the “fundamental asocial-ness” of the sex drive also make me a bit suspicious. As I read Annette Weiner, seduction is the metaphor and model of all social relations in the Trobriands. And maybe the fact that the sex drive “even particularly delights” in breaking rules should be a clue here: isn’t rule-breaking, resistance, and rebellion as culturally structured and variable as order?

Oh and wait, this business of the father’s not knowing paternity—isn’t that the basis of Hawaiian kinship terminology according to Morgan? Actually, Trobrianders are also said not to recognize paternity, so perhaps Godelier’s scheme can be rescued if we don’t consider them human. And the male parental care thing—isn’t that an argument Desmond Morris made in The Naked Ape? (He called it pair-bonding; it explains why human breasts “mimic” buttocks.)

On a less sarcastic note: why should we assume that the behaviors that result in what we call “incest avoidance” in apes are somehow the product of natural selection, while the behaviors involved in what we call “homosexuality” in apes are not? Perhaps these behaviors are the product of the same generalized capacities for social learning. There is a whole revolution going on in biology, where it is becoming clear that one can’t really talk about the evolution of “traits” without understanding something about the ontogeny of those traits—the whole distinction between “instinctual” and “learned” behavior is exploded in this work, as as is the Dawkins-Wilson et al idea that evolution is primarily about the genome. The authoritative work on this is Developmental Plasticity and Evolution by Mary Jane West-Eberhard.

by Comet Jo

Report this comment

]]> By: Ozma http://savageminds.org/2006/01/20/on-the-origins-of-sexual-prohibitions/comment-page-1/#comment-3026 Ozma Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:22:47 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=370#comment-3026 Feminists have rehabilitated the (grotesquely sexist, if you read for example the first chapter of the Elementary Structures of Kinship, but nevertheless important) work of L-S in this way for some time already: saying that what is important is not the "incest taboo" (which can easily be shown to be a non-starter) but his insight that society and culture are predicated on *rules*. It doesn't matter what the "first rule" is (L-S argued, unsuccessfully it is now clear, for the incest taboo) what matters is that moment at which rules that do not have their explanation in biological/environmental/immediate contextual circumstances become perduring (which is to say distributed across a community and transmitted across generations). Feminists have rehabilitated the (grotesquely sexist, if you read for example the first chapter of the Elementary Structures of Kinship, but nevertheless important) work of L-S in this way for some time already: saying that what is important is not the “incest taboo” (which can easily be shown to be a non-starter) but his insight that society and culture are predicated on *rules*. It doesn’t matter what the “first rule” is (L-S argued, unsuccessfully it is now clear, for the incest taboo) what matters is that moment at which rules that do not have their explanation in biological/environmental/immediate contextual circumstances become perduring (which is to say distributed across a community and transmitted across generations).

Report this comment

]]>