From Wikiversity

This page is uncategorized. Please help improve this article by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related articles (how?). Please remove this tag after categorizing, but not before. When categorizing this resource, the green project boxes on the right will guide you to suitable help pages for categorizing by subject, educational level, resource type and completion status. You can also add further categories of your choice.

This article needs to be wikified to meet Wikiversity's quality standards Please help improve this article with relevant internal links.

Reasearch/experimental/Original reasearch. Uploaded by --Deweirdifier 14:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Multimedia from here http://www.torrentz.com/96f62b834cac1bbc3abb5eb8555dcc49b7346e23

index The Deweirdifier

[edit] Do we know who we are‽

I have to remind you, that what folows is just a conjecture, ITS JUST AN UNPROVEN CONJECTURE, and conjectures are quite often wrong. In the 19th century, scientists argued that airplanes were impossible, because "the steam engine is too heavy", it made perfect sense then, imagine a locomotive with wings. Quality and methodology here is the same as with the other 3 primary sections.

[edit] Induction

A litle investigation in to religion. I'm dividing religion in to 2 components. A proto science component, theories about the world and coresponding solutions. It might seem strange to call this science, but when you don't know much about physics, assuming that lightnings are throng by an angry god, makes perfect sense. The overlooked second component of religions, its that they have an anti-depressive efect(religious people are hapier).

Theres great variability in the world, but a comon patern that detaches, is that the more opresive a society is, the more religious people are. So a first working hypothesis is that they compensate there low "afection" level in there society with "afection" from religion, if society is not too opresive, the need for extra "afection" is lower. Prime examples would be Saudi Arabia, while at the other end of the spectrum would be Sweden. It sounds good, but on closer inspection it doesn't cut it. It seems that the swedes too are compensating, not by religion, but by consumerism, that was in oposition to my preconceived ideas. They are rather rich, too well fed(fat), they buy endless junk for there homes, modern medicine, very well educated, the Internet, machine slaves, too much TV, too much porn, low fertility(cuting corners, for more fun), etc... All this luxury is way too much for prehistoric people, they had periodic famines, wars, they owned what they could cary, leaches as standard medication, iliterate, etc.... This mean that prehistoric people had to compensate some how, the only possible thing that could do this for them is religion. Swed society is very secular, and she doesn't fall apart, quite the oposite actualy, so that religion is somehow important for a human society, doesn't cut it. I my self i'm atheist, yet i'm not particularly imoral. Shame works as well as guilt, in social stability. But then whats the point that human beens are so fragile, that need psychological compensation? They just seems to simply cancel each other out, religion and high emotional fragility, compensation for compensation sake?

I must be doing something wrong here, the evidence seems to sugest, that prehistoric people where religious, to cover up a weakness. Why natural selection would do that, simply make people tougher at a genetic level, seems far beater. There are various guesses we can com up with, but all don't feel right, they don't feel like typical natural selection hack, "scales become tooths", it feels diferent, for me, it feels like "the steam engine is too heavy". I got bored and had a break, what about having a look in to animals just for fun. You know, a state of mind like when you ask calculus questions to your gold fish while your brain heals. The hope is that by investigating painstakingly, a great number of diferent animals, we'll get inspired to something that extrapolates in to humans. We start by being very lazy, the mouse? Hmmm to stupid. The baboon? Too ugly. The chimp? Yes thats very good, but which 1. There are 2 species of chimp, the comon chimp and the bonobo. The comon chimp has a very brutal social life, aparently they are realy tough at every level, they don't seem to compensate in some way. The bonobo is believed to be closer to the comon ancestors of chimps and humans(5M years), they changed the least from the 3 species, they are closer to humans then comon chimps. Bonobo prominent feature of there social life, is that they engage casualy in great quantity and variety of sex, basicaly all conceivable acts: bisexual, orgy, adult-child, none reproductive incest..... All this sex, is used as a social cohesion mecanism, its not useless fun. Conjecturing that bonobo behavior is the normal social behavior of humans, explains away the seemingly excessive emotional fragility( requiring compensation) in modern humans :) .....processing..... O_O hin???? What???? ..... I wrote that? In short, religion stems from our natural excessive need for sex, sex here being a social cohesion mecanism o_O .

Yes, i realy did noticed that the conclusion is a mater anti-mater explosion, but looking more closely the details seems to comfort the conjecture. Bonobos are the most obscene species on the planet, and its just a coincidence, that its our closest living relative? Us? the most dominant species on the planet? Too many coincidences. Actualy, the mere fact that on its own the theory combines so many hot potatoes, realy realy over all scales of controversy, hints that its realy into something here. Coincidence? Again? Its so unbelievable, that it has to be true. And it smells social engineering. Its a scientific theory, and i'm doing my best with the available data. If the data points to something extremely controversial, wheeeel, so be it. It wouldn't be the first time the ancients, got it completely wrong.

(I wrote what folows in inverse controversy order, not logic. So, if you find it confusing, its normal.)

[edit] The devil is in the details

Keep in mind that writing was not invented until around 4000BC, and of course the older the worse quality gets. So we have no other choice then doing a lot of guessing, for the periods before that. Bonobo-like society, comes packaged, you can not chery pic what you like, its all of them simultaneously or none of them.

[edit] our dear ancestors

Our last comon human/bonobo/ComonChimp ancestor lived 5 milion years ago. His social structure was probably very similar to that of todays bonobos(if we are realy hard wired like bonobos, its reazonable to expect that). None violent, a lot of sex(oversexed) with everybody, with social cohesion and conflict rezolution in mind. Its like the emoticons on the internet, but in reverse. Heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, group sex, polygynandry, adult-child, none reproductive incest, they even invented a sex position of there own(4 hands). Young bonobos are initiated by there own mothers, and participate as soon they are physicaly able. Incest is ok, as long as its not between a mother and her adult son, females leave the group at puberty so theres no issue with them.

Zoophilia between scientists and bonobos O_O :

But things aren't perfect, they have there share of violence, zoos, can atest with stories of biten off fingers and penises(ouch), but no death, as of yet, physical violence is kind of similar with what we do to each other. If they where perfectly pacifist, then they would be no need for extra social cohesion mecanism. Reproductive sex is actually secondary and overwhelmingly overtaken by social cohesion. Evolution, can't do much more then tinker with whats already there, this kind of recycling is the norm, remember how we evolved(scales-->tooths). Of course they are higher and lower status individuals, that get diferent amounts of atention, but not the usual pronounced sharp diference.

Notice, that such a social environment exerts quite unusual selective pressures. Its not that they are shovels and shovels of species behaving like the bonobos, they are realy unique, alone in its category. So it would be an amazing coincidence, that the closest species to the dominant species of the planet, has these quirks, that are completely unrelated to our over sized brains. That would be 2 very unusual events hapening, 1 next to the other. Probably the social situation exacerbated brain competition, when it started, by preserving very high female choice on mating(mariage is restrictive by design). Further more, our sex taboos seem to overlap with there sex customs, an other suspicious coincidence. If we are in our natural social condition, why all this taboo creep?

We are realy big pervs, depending on the individual, we are preocupied about what kind of sex we will do, or what kind of sex should be forbiden. Caesar was a dictator, he overthrew the republic, make him self emperor, renamed after him self the month of july(Ruhnama), an absolute ruler over the greatest empire the region had ever seen and cauzed a civil war. What people payed atention to? His afair with Cleopatra of course, what else. By standards of other animals this oversexism is greatly unusual, this hints of something out of the ordinary is going on. Other animals get exited for copulation, only certain periods of the year, clearly here copulation is for reproduction. Plenty of monogamous animals experience seasonal heat, so monogamy can't acoun't for it. They would get repulsed, the same way we are repulsed by female chimps extreme slutiness, 10 males in 15 minutes. Even when a society is sex opressive, she must exert a great deal of presure to keep everybody in line, betraying that she goes against our nature. Comon chimps deviate greatly from this, they are total survivors, there social life is rather brutal. Actualy they look, the way we should be, tough enough to live at relative ease in there environment, no psychological compensation needed. We and bonobos on the other hand are delicate creatures. In WWII bombs droped in a zoo of Germany, the bonobos died from the fright, while the chimps weren't visibly afected. It would be interesting to make various psychological experiments on bonobos, like sex deprivation of various degrees, growing up in a human like social environment, compensations... etc, but they are threaten with extinction.

Bonobos have changed the least, and are closer to us, under this theory our normal behavior would be very similar to that of bonobos and our ancestors from at least 5 milion years ago where wired to behave in this way, until +/- 10.000 years ago. If this true, then theres ground to reclassify humans, from "homo sapiens sapiens" to "pan sapiens" (pan = chimps, Pan paniscus = bonobo, Pan troglodytes = comon chimp), stressing the fact we are animals and still part of nature. Reclassifying chimps as homo would have a weaker educational efect, simply singling out some special species. Seting up a classification where we are all alone in our group was 18th century navel gazing anthropocentric narcissism anyway.

[edit] genetics

Some direct genetic evidence for human promiscuity in our genes. Of course they are others.

Bonobos share 98% of there genes with us, thats about the distance between a fox and a dog. This means what it means.

Human penises, have a rather unusual and unique shape. The edges of the gland seem to be optimized to scoop out the semen of the rivals, (tested experimentaly, yes various designs of latex penises where tested on latex vaginas) male refractory period is to avoid scooping his own semen. Presumably circumcision helps here, it reduces the chance that rezidue of scooped foreign sperm will fertilize an other woman(the oficial spouse), however the foreskin is probably there for protection reazons(fixed this with underwear). This feature is present at a lower extent in bonobos. In contrast, Gorilas have harems, and there penises are the bare minimum(petite).

Size of testicles: In gorilas, the alpha male has a harem and he is the boss, females are extremely faithful, believe it, your testicles are biger then his. Chimps have huge testicles, they try to drown the rivals. We are in between, comparable to the bonobos. We are not extremely faithful as the gorilas, but not extremely promiscuous as in the chimps. Typicaly 10 males in 15 minutes, thats not human, the females try to blur paternity as much as possible, to avoid infanticide later, they copulate with as much males they physicaly can. Thats the evolutionary rational, female chimps only know that they are extremely horny, and males that they are jealous. Women(and female bonobos) have a real choice, in oposition to chimps and gorilas. Technicaly, it seems that 1/4 of our testicles would be enough(gorila proportions), if there was no competition at all. If you had any ilusions about faithfulness, testicular size simply seals the issue.

Sperm quality. Gorila sperm, is not only less abundant, it is weak and doesn't know where the north is. Chimps sperm, is the grand armee of Napoleon, strong and fucking serious in his job. Human sperm is less hardened.

Sperm, can survive up to 3 days in the vagina. So any sperm competition tric is relevant only if females have vaginal sex with diferent males inside a period of 3 days. On top of this, none vaginal sex is discounted from sperm competition. Anal sex technology further pushes sperm competition down in humans, when compared with bonobos that don't practice it. Its a reasonable assumption that anal sex artificial lubrication was invented before fire use (+/-2M) but after humans/chimp/bonobo split (+/-5M). Frequency of copulation required for a sucesful impregnation is very high in bonobos and humans, alpha males win by there higher proportion of copulation, not by exclusivity. In contrast in chimps and Gorilas, copulation hapens only when the female is ovulating. Presumably in humans and bonobos, this dilutes the pressure of sperm competition, hence smaller testicles then chimps. Chimps have to give all they've got at 1 go, simultaneously with, almost all the males of the group... and even some from neighboring groups. In human/bonobos, sperm competes with males of the last 3 days(5?), not the entire vilage and beyond(10s).

Sex drive in chimps and bonobos is high becauze of there sluty females. In gorilas sex drive is minimal, becauze the females of the harem are faithful. Humans have a high sex drive, so theres no way our females are very faithful.

Oestrus in women is hiden, even from them selves, in bonobos the period when they are sexualy receptive is very extended. Hmmm, maybe its not oestrus that is hiden, but the period of none sexual receptiveness that got completely supressed, but anyway. Presumably hiden oestrus coupled with promiscuity, completely obfuscates paternity, this way the males can't be sure which larva is theres, unlace they hapen to have a lab. Hmm, maybe in us, oestrus got completely hiden because we got too smart, it is suposed that animals can't make the link, between copulation and babies, we surpassed that level a while now. So natural selection will make males docile and cooperative, no infanticide, no cheating aloud, they have to take care of all babies. And of course, they would have no other choice then to copulate continuously, if they want to have a chance to impregnate any female. In a monogamous species, why hide oestrus? Its too much work for no money.

Men/women size ratio is low, indicating a relative equality between men and women. In chimps and gorilas, the males are much biger, wile in bonobos the size diference is the lowest of the 3. Complicating factors: Males are suposed to protect the females, so presure for biger size. A demanding pregnancy(big brain), developed important fat reserves(like a camel) in the botocs and breast for the bad times(they had no fridge). A smaler size of women makes economies in food, so more food is available for the pregnancy. Size ratios could serve as proxies for investigating social behavior of our ancestors, social behavior doesn't fossilize very well; Pre-split bonobo/human ancestors(over 5M years), as well dead end branching species. Very interesting to see f/m ratios for the last milions of years.

As we where getting smart, primitive birth control tricks gradually got introduced, having some none 0 genetic contribution. Thus promiscuity's genetic inprints, got depressed.

Paternity tests show, that an important % of children are ilegitimate, products of extramarital affairs, definitively we are not monogamous.

Women that live together, have there cycles synchronized. The reazon escapes me, but it seems somehow relevant here.

It's still too early to tell, but up to now, the most important genetic diferences with chimps are in brain cortex, language genes, imune system, etc. Not social aspects, that it would be probably some where in the limbic system. For now, at the most, genetic changes of social aspects with chimps/bonobos where "not huge". Under this theory, we should find social genes similarities with bonobos, but dissimilarities with chimps. Looking in the genes that, changed the most between bonobos/chimps(from a total of 0,4%) and simultaneously the least changed between humans/bonobos; hopefully should narrow down the search considerably. Hmm 0,4% max, that's our luck smiling, its doable to seal the truthfulness or not of the conjecture in just a couple of years. We have to keep in mind that this is still a 5M years distance. Investigation with neandertal genome(<30.000) is at the point of becoming tecnicaly feasable, interesting becauze they split 400K-500K years ago. Sucessful extraction from milions of years old fossils has never being done(yet?), neither from secondary sources(mosquitoes fossils... ). So for our older ancestors, gene comparisons will not hapen any time soon. Behavior doesn't fozilise very well, but size ratios proxies(hint female/male equality) should give some vage hints for what happened between gorila and bonobos splits(7M).

[edit] climate

Around 10.000 years ago, dramatic climatic change ocured, a lot of species that needed from 100s of 1000s of years to milions of years to evolve went extinct, this show that climatic change was way out of usual cycle. The very last wooly mammoths, died out in 1,650 BC , Neanderthals(30000), other less know casualties: the wooly rhino (8000), saber tooth (9000), Doedicurus (11000), Macrauchenia (20000), Megatherium (8000), european lion (10000). The numbers sugest a prolonged and gradual degradation, in which fragile beings died out first, while the toughest resisted longer. Other sign that something unusual hapend 10.000 years ago, is the human colonization of the Americas around that time.

This climate change had a profound impact on humans, we didn't went extinct, but we had to adapt to the new situation, we invented agriculture. Well, probably we had notions of agriculture from times imemorable, but we never based our food supply on agriculture. You have to keep in mind, that they had to invent everything, even which plant to use, and those plants where wild, with very low productivity. A clear indication that agriculture began forcibly on our ancestors, is that the health of skeletons around that time went way down. The fact is that modern humans are basicaly the same since 100K years ago, an impressive change force them to initiate the civilizational revolutions of unprecedented scale, to the point of being the unchalenged boss of the planet. We went from, just an animal among others, to despotic rulers, while geneticaly we didn't change. I'm not trying to do a course in history, i'm demonstrating that there was a severe environmental stress on our ancestors, around 10.000 years ago, that forced them to adapt in order to survive(and got too sucesful).

With the passage from hunter gatherers to agriculture, human societies had to adapt as well. Trying to guess the life of prehistoric people by looking todays hunter gatherers is very perilous, these people have often complex histories of sendentarizations and renomadizations, migrations, important cultural contact with other civilizations, wars, ... It's believed, prehistoric societies where anarcho-comunist. As hunter gatherers life, meant they couldn't reach very high population densities, so everybody new everybody else, so this simplifies considerably administration. While being nomadic meant that it was impossible to own much, since you had to cary everything. If this sounds like an utopia, its because it was, this is not surprizing, we got adapted best to this life style after milions of years of living like that. Basicaly i'm proposing that prehistoric societies where structured close to that of bonobos, and severe environmental stress messed things up. This would excuse humanity's behavior from all its crimes, we are just environmentaly stressed animals, and stressed animal are always violent.

A litle reverse example that this can indeed hapen, is with a group of baboons near a land field. The land field is source of abundant food, for the group. The most ugly and despotic males, make sure they where the 1s that got the best stuf. Because of the land field, the baboons cached tuberculosis and a lot died, especialy afected where the ugly despotic males, since they ate more junk food then the others. The efect on the group was surpriszing, an important swing to pacifism and egalitarianism, that still is maintained 20 years later, a very long time for baboons. Hmmm, is it that many other social species got violent, because of deregulated climate 10.000 ago and still are, in the same way we got deregulated?

[edit] first state

Sedentarization, authorized private wealth, rendering inequalities possible, something completely new for people back then, no or weak inequality mitigating structures. When agriculture was finaly mastered, this lead to demographic explosion and the first cities, this completely blow up the foundation of there society. For the first time ever, humans could interact with so many humans, that they couldn't know everybody, the system simply couldn't scale up, they had to improvise, so here is where religion was introduced. In this environment social cohesion, can't be achieved with sex, there are just too many people. People can't know each other, but they can all know comon friends to act as intermediates, they redirected part of there "afection" needs to gods(same neural rules as promiscuity).

Around this period, they invented mariage for procreation purposes and taking in to acount the inequality of society. The rich and powerful took more then there fair share of resources, so the females run away towards them. The details can be quite complicated and messy, many variations where possible, for example monogamy, polygyny, modulation in women's rights, dowries, etc. But importantly, inequality precluded re-emergence.

You have to keep in mind that the very first cities, had to invent everything, basicaly there was no state, they made it up from scratch, no rule of law, there was anarchy, no police, no courts, no army, no firemen, zip. We take many things for granted, but as certain failed african states demonstrate, these things don't just hapen automaticaly. First civilizations where theocracies, so that everybody's comon friends(gods) put some order in the chaos. First rulers, draw there legitimacy from the gods, its beater to have a dictator then total anarchy. Of course this was the product of cultural evolution, it wasn't a conspiracy from a cabal in order to rule the other suckers.

Some amount of cultural evolution hapened for practical reazons. But dictators needs, of the type of Ruhnama dude, for centuries and centuries, didn't left cultures unscarred. I remind you that Ruhnama dude like phenomenon, isn't rare, hinted by Julius Caesar(july), Augustus(august), Qin(china), etc. Today past dictators are romanticized, if the Taj Mahal was built today, it would be seen no diferently then the 100 milion mosque in the midle of the desert. Ruhnama extravagance shows that interventions of social caracter, for well thought or purely ideological reazons are quite possible. There's a dictators evolution, favoring those that willingly or just by chance render and maintain there serfs more obedient. Thus complementing the shift away from bonobo like societies. Of course the 2 can add up, a stable government is preferable to people then having anarchy.

[edit] culture

The gigantic variation among cultures, thru space and time, for complex reazons, is consistent with the theory, hinting at a minimum, that not many, or even any contemporary society lives acording to what there brains is hard wired for. This variation can't be normal, among all primates, humans have the most diverse societies. In 1 end of the scale, rather ancient and sex pozitive civilizations, like ancient greeks(pederasty), pacific islanders(sex pozitive) to the saudis and amish in the other end of the scale. Prezumably pederasty custom has its roots in the times imemorable general behavior, the ancient greeks where the most famous, but by no mean abnormal by ancient standards. Pacific islander, had to adapt to there environment, tiny islands often separated by huge distances, to reduce inbreeding as much as possible, they had to be very sex positive, in order to not miss the rare chances they had to mix with foreign blood. For the saudis, probably the deserts, more or less directly, didn't make them very sex pozitive.

A general trend that detaches, is that as we go back in time. Societies become more and more, sex positive, up until the begining of writing(4000BC). Beyond that we can't have acounts of direct witnesses. So the assumption here is that we can extrapolate this trend backwards.

Is it possible that we are that off, from our hard wiring? Culture can have a important efect on what people consider aceptable, good and beautiful.

The tradition of excision, in the mildest form, the clitoris is cut off. The most severe(infibulation), labias minoras are cut off too and the labias magoras are sewed together so that they cicatrize and fuse together. All this with out anesthesia of course, on young girls. For giving birth, the labias are cut open, after delivery they are resewed, this hapens every time they give birth, and for the populations concerned, thats around 6-7 times, and with no anesthesia of course. This sound cruel and barbaric, but people practicing it, are genuinely convinced they are doing a good thing for there children, they are just normal average people, they aren't sick.

An other impressive case, was chinese foot binding(缠足), the foots of the girls are tied at a very young age, so that they get molded in the particular small shape. Initialy the bones where broken and folded in shape, gradualy tightening the bond. Of course this was very painful, and done with out anesthesia. The girls where then forced to walk on there broken foots so that they get molded beater. Infections was frequent, developing in to gangrene and toes where faling off, this was considered a blessing since the foots could be molded even smaller. These infections could some time be lethal. Long term consequences: dificult mobility, foot refractures, fungi infections in the folds, etc. What today would be considered a monstrosity, back then was considered, good, very beautiful and erotic. The chinese weren't sick, they where normal people, they realy believed that the practice was ok.

In mauritania, fat women are considered beautiful. So traditionaly, girls are faten by being force fed camels milk, +/-15liters a day. This is done with 2 stiks that clamp there fingers/toes, so that the intense pain averts the vomiting reflex, forbiding them to move(preserve calories) and other physical abuses, up to feeding them there own vomit. They can get killed(stomac rupture), have finger/toes broken and later they can develop diabetes, heart disease, gallstones, arthritis, etc... Again, for these people, this custom is perfectly normal.(obese girls get early puberty, and they get maried young there, a conection?)

In these extremely brutal cases, normal people are convinced, that they are doing something right and normal. These people are normal and sane, they aren't sick. I want to show here that the brain, with aparent complete arbitrariness, can come to consider as normal a huge variety of behavior. So a society with a bonobo like behavior, is within what our brains is capable of considering as normal and right. And its with in the realm of possible, that we indeed greatly deviated from this initial condition.

[edit] psy

Freud, wasn't that wrong after all.

Simple animals like ants, are hard wired down to the slightest wigel of there antena. However, we are capable of taking in to acount the environment and adapt to it. So we enjoy a important degree of maneuver, albeit its not realy freedom.

However there are limits, whats especialy important in us, is what we learn as children. Like the litle monkey that was scared of white bunies, in a similar way, what we learn as children gets cemented. And basicaly theres an important degree of arbitrariness injected in our behaviors. The disgust urge, has no much rationality in it, the aple juice was fine, the decorative real cockroach was sterile, so whats the problem? Why don't you drink? Not thirsty? Example of completely baseless social behavior, the Osu in Nigeria are live human sacrifices to the spirits, consisting of being untouchable, shuned from society and there status is past on to the next generations. This phenomenon acount for the huge variability in world cultures, including the extream cases like excision and foot binding.

About a bonobo-like human society: You feel uncomfortable about it, for a similar reazon as the litle monkey was scared of white bunies, you simply learned it as a child. Higher rate of physical afection on children/adolescents corespond to societies with much lower rates of violence. So a bonobo like afectionate human society should proportionaly have lower rates of general violence. Remember the prizon and obedience experiment, you are a poor judge of what you would do in a given situation, you must be put in the situation to know for sure. Somatosensory-afectional deprivation theory (S-SAD) is pushed to its ultimate conclusion. A selective advantage, natural selection should push us in that direction. In practice afectionate would mean, extended breastfeeding, extended use of baby cariers and in general very open sexualy.

Its hear say and anecdotal evidence, but that homosexuals are less violent could be acounted for in there higher then average promiscuity. Presumably they are more promiscuous, because societal taboo focus is about heterosexual promiscuity, totaly irelevant to them(mecanism like that of the necrophiles). Societal taboo, only says, homosexuality is wrong, once that is gone, societal taboo is weak.

Our customs evolve back to .... normal, today a strong democratic modern state takes the place of gods as comon friends, with the rule of law, the police, the courts, the army, power legitimacy, etc... More importantly, democracy, lowers inequality, rendering re-emergence in practice possible. Other wise women would simply run away to the rich. So, i'm making a prediction, say in some centuries, tops, we will be completely sexualy liberated(the influence of this text is asumed 0, too pretentious to asume other wise). If we have a look at the evolution of morals the last centuries, a trend apears to that direction. Today, whats all this wave of unbridled promiscuity among teenagers? Maybe there brains knows something that we don't. You knew already that we gradualy get more and more liberal, i'm just saying that it will go much further then any 1 seriously ever imagined, we are not even at half of it.

Evolution doesn't just magicaly hapen, random changes first ocur, and then the 1s that are actualy good for the creature are retained. Similarly with cultural evolution, all the changes that lead to that future, at first hapen at random, and simply because they are truly beneficial, spread to the entire population. New waves of change add them selves on top of the previous waves, and so on.

New comunication technologies, have acelarating efects. In general, comercial mass media always provocatively test the limits, in order to diferenciate there products from the competition. Especialy powerful is the internet, due to his point to point capabilities. Any perversion, you can imagine, you can't imagine and don't want to imagine, floats in there, and its completely uncensored. The assumption here is that increase exposure, brings sensibilities down, hence a catalyzing efect. The brain always tries to generalize, hence theres always crosstalking between issues.

[edit] past taboos

If we want to understand where we are going, we must know where we come from. Our not so distant past was very sex negative, a couple of centuries ago, we(europe) where comparable with the taliban.

• Not so long ago.
  Socialy disaprouved activities: masturbation. Ilegal activities: Premarital sex, adultery, fornication, oral and anal sex(sodomy), mixed race mariages, divorce, abortion. Death penalty: Homosexuality.
• Merenge dance was ilegal, deamed too "hot".
• Victorian morals where exagerated, but there was indeed something to exagerate from.
• Various tailes were for the sexual training of litle girls. With litle imagination you can spot the underlying moralistic meaning: Litle red riden hood(wolf = men, don't be a slut), Sleeping Beauty(wait until mariage, don't be a slut), The Frog Prince(submit to arange mariage with old goat, don't be a slut), Beauty and the beast(old goat, don't be a slut), Snow white(wait for mariage, don't be a slut) ... Keep in mind that contemporary versions where watered down, in order not to scare the kids. For example: In litle red riden hood, theres no woodcuter, she just get raped. In snow white, the prince has sex with her and the movement dislodges the aple, no, he didn't knew she was alive.

Some quotes of times past about masturbation. These are not odd balls of there time, where dead serious, and society was behind them. Todays anti smoking campaigns are leaner. Don't forget, kids where told similar things.

• New Haven, Connecticut 1640s death penalty for

.

• A 1710 pamflet titled:

• Consequences acording to Dr. Samuel-Auguste Tissot 1760:

• Consequences acording to Dr. Benjamin Rus 1812:

• Consequences acording to Dr. Henry Maudsley 1867:

• From Dr. John H. Kellogg(1852-1943), yes the 1 of the breakfast cereals:

• Judith A. Reisman(1935-), no coment:

Today: Survivor of times past, "Masturbation makes you blind". Just to show it was very wide spread, in frecnh its "deaf"(i'm not french). Todays they are too many recognized benefits to count.

These people where normal, like you. There where convinced that there ways couldn't get any more normal. You too, are convinced that your behavior can't get any more normal. You are apaled by the projected evolution of society. But you also know that morals kept changing up until the people imediately behind you. Is this simply an amazing coincidence, that you are the first generation with truthfuly good normality, in oposition with our recent ancestors that felt opressed or acted sadisticaly or where plainly stupid? Or that simply a mecanism in your brain, fixes a series of arbitrary behaviors as what normality is and our recent ancestors where as convinced as you?

Remember, what you learn about the world, can have deep impact on you. The normal children of retarded parents that become them selves retarded is the most extream impact. Obesity and anorexia, are example of less extream neuronal deregulation. More universal example, the insectophagy taboo, its perfectly good food you know.

[edit] nudity

A logical assumption, is that our dear ancestors where completely naked(even the bible say so). Actualy you don't need to look back 1000s of years. A lot of societies today are relaxed with nudity. Rather laughably, in africa conservatives complain, about the loss of traditional values(refering to skin exposure issues). But, not even 100 years ago, in these same countries people where, basicaly naked.

All animals are technicaly nude, they don't seem particularly distressed, unless when its cold. So why is it even an issue in humans? You surely remember how the sily litle americans reacted because of some 1s wardrobe failure live on TV. Its a completely pointless and nonsensical custom. Why would we need to "corect" nature? Aparently, clothing(apart for protection) acts as an artificial uglyfier, this way its easier for society to supress sexual urges of its members. If IVF had being invented 2000 years ago, all sex would have being a sin, even procreative sex. They even reduced breast feeding to a minimum, if it was technicaly feasible it would had been completely forbiden. If you think about the magnitude of the absurdity, something that trivial as hiding certain parts of the anatomy, for no aparent good reazon, it will be clear to you that something isn't right with us, at a fundamental level. I mean, comon, this 1, is trivialy obvious, total bullshit. We have a mandatory anti-nudity instinct, to protect us from .... the cold? Come on. I'm claiming that in a similar way, other issues are as distorted from our normal behavior.

This is not just the fashion of the time. Each image, rufly reflects what maximum aloud exposure of skin was aceptable. In 1851, people would be equaly scandalized by the seeing of a leg, as we would be today by the exposure of pubic hair(i'm exagerating?). The same emotional response, at the same levels. Not so long ago, showing your navel was also an issue, who complains today about that? Would you prevent your daughter from exposing her navel? Would you complain if the teacher exposes hers in class?

Future, due to cultural evolution:

As the evolution of swimsuit sugest, modesty hasn't finished evolving. A guess about plausible future evolution of acepted clothing, by tiny increments, theres always higher resistance when passing from something, to nothing. By acepeted here i mean, like 100% acepted, not simply that is legal.

Today, only very young children are aloud nude. This period can get gradualy more and more extended. This extension gradualy reaches the time that pubic hair apears, they are simply removed and the extension upwards continuous. For girls a gradual extension of the time whith out a bikini, up until there glands develop, then spilling in too when they develop. After they pass the deemed inapropriate level of development, they ware what adult ware, but these extensions in childhood result in lower sensibilities of adults, thus acelarating the below developments. From, the other direction, nudism is more prevalent among old people, aparently they feel less threatened, because they lost there sex apeal, this sense of security gradualy travels down the age piramid. Extra influences by, internet, mass media, cell phones..... The internet is especialy powerful, permiting planetary exhibitionism, to however wants to have a peek, from the security of your home, with optional anonimity, even in/from saoudy arabia(dangerous). Gradual spread, of special places, like nudist beaches, special nudists events, the carnival, certain parks(legaly), the internet, certain hours..... Eventualy all places becoming legal to nudism. In general, with control on membership and gradation in the alowed nudity, people can be exposed and perform at there maximum of there sensibilities, boosting desensitization.

Women:

The bikini, at the point we are now, female toplessnes, is gradualy being acepted, first step is usualy breastfeeding, but gradualy spils over:

1. Gradualy lose opacity and geting smaller, exept around niples.
2. Only niples hiden; transparent thing, a net thing or some other kind of contraption in this efect for the rest of the clothing. Example a 3 piece.
3. Pouf

For the lower garment, in the first steps pubic hair will be removed away, they will not be shown no mater what. Males are indeed stimulated by the sight of female pubic hair, porn movies are a diferent mater.

1. The string will establish it self first
2. The front will become barely legal by todays standards(no pubic hair)
3. It will gradualy lose opacity(no pubic hair)
4. Opacity to 0, can you even call that clothing?(no ph)
5. Pouf(no ph)
6. Pubic hair starts gradualy apearing

And because women will always be women, useless bling bling will always be there, stuf like transparent clothing, net things, piercings, body painting, tatoos, hats, bracelets.....

Males:

1. String.
2. internet nudity, gradual expansion of images recipients.
3. Pouf on the beach.

[edit] polygynandry

If the below resemble somewhat a cult, its no coincidence. Cults rely on the same neuronal paths to atract suckers.

About size, theres no way it can go above 100, it gets impossible to track each people above that. Bonobos have around 100 members in a group, 120 max, with a smaller brain, but we also interact with greater complexity with felow humans. Language isn't just handy, it also increases the complexity of interpersonal interactions, so about maximum size contribution its probably close to neutral. A reasonable guess is around 100 max. Maximum, size depends on sexual permissiveness levels(s-sad). With bonobo like permissiveness probably 100 max. While contemporary developed world permissiveness probably around 10 max, no, 2 is too low. Group dynamic of 2, and above 3 are very diferent, size of 2 group is much more unstable and fragile then above 3 groups, so your personal experience isn't readily transposable in important groups. A similar phenomenon ocurs with wind mils, when a 2 blade wind mill vibrates, theres great probability that all vibrational energy concentrates on 1 blade, and brakes, a 3 blade wind mill keeps the energy dispersed on all 3 blades, and hence is the standard blade number. Apart sex permissiveness, corporal punishment lowers this maximum number. As you may realize, for a serious crowd like 120, people must be extremely friendly and pacific, todays developed societies, just can't handle those levels, even nordic countries fail short.

Mariage is a contract to manage economic issues with razing children, in an inegalitarian society. It institutionalizes inequality, polygamy for the rich, monogamy for some others and prostitutes for the rest. With ownership, unknowingly, razing some 1 else's children amounts to theft, so societies had to regulate, a previous unregulated activity, in a basicaly comunist economy(all females cared for). In the postulated prehistoric society, polygynandry acts as social glue, with blury blood relations due to promiscuity, leaving no other alternative then being friendly with everybody. In that context the couple in a monogamous mariage would alienate it self from the group, less then friendly relations with a group, at a time that there are no laws, no police, no insurance or anything to help you; if the group decides to kill you, thats it.

bonobos Vs humans

Theres a great variation in mariage customs. Usualy its polygyny, sometimes monogamy, rarely polyandry and at least 1 polygynandry (group mariage in Caingang tribe). Usualy the woman adopts the family name of her husband(s). In the bonobos, the females leave there birth group and join an other 1, in order to avoid inbreeding, while the males stay in there birth group indefinitely. This seam to sugest, that fundamentally similar mechanisms are at work here. Further more, its women, that are very sociable, talk too much and are obsessed with there apearance and dress like christmas trees. This sugest that they are adaptations, in order to increase the chances that they get acepted in the receiving group (in prehistory). That this transition hapens at puberty in bonobos, sugest a possible mecanism. At puberty girls become less sociable(obnoxious teenagers), they wander off randomly, and when hormone levels fall, they rebecome more social, and simply integrate to what ever group they hapened to be at the time. Presumably, male teenage rebelion, is to find a suitable leader figure and gain status in the group while they are young and able, higher status mean more copulation.

Sure, we aren't carbon copies, but strong similarities seem to be present. Bonobos are oficialy matriarchal. But they are very egalitarian and none violent, hierarchy isn't very pronounced, rank is rather a measure of influence and/or seniority, not despotism. At least 1 primatologist said that female higher status rather corespond to higher pro-afection interest from the males. 50 nude sluts vs males, who is the boss? Female female bonding is more important then male male bonding, males rather tolerate each other. The most important female male bonding its between males and there momies, that actively help them gain status (isn't this familiar?). All that seem to be transposable to humans. Men are obsessed with women, not just to impregnate them, but to give them a higher status, because they bare the burden of reproduction. In bonobos, males don't do anything to help the females with raising there young, sounds familiar? Women are more needy in bonding, presumably, thats suposed to target other women of there group, like in the bonobos. This gives a hint why polyandry isn't very popular, if the cohesion in a group is produced by the females, then a real polyandry has very low cohesion. Actualy even the litle polyandry that ocurs, cheats like hell, since all men are brothers. Interestingly bonobos do exactly that, since males never leave the birth group, they all know each other from birth. By extension, the image that polyginy is imposed on women is simplistic, with out some minimal cohesion, this system couldn't have worked at all. And of course there are many other human like behaviors. They are human like enough, that in the region, eating bonobos is taboo.

Bonobo matriarchy is very egalitarian, a coresponding human matriarchy should also be very egalitarian, not just patriarchal the other way around. For example, babies and 70 year olds with alzheimers will be at the bottom, most of everybody else around 30 will be intermediate, and a chief(male/female) will be the alpha. The chief would only be entitled to give polite advice, if others tend not to folow him/her, it simply means that he/she isn't chef any more. Its easy to imagine why women would have higher status and set up a matriarchy, men simply couldn't say no to 50 nude sluts, they would worship them like godesses.

In this social context, sex has nothing to do with procreation. It reduces tentions, and is used for reconciliation. The supervizor classifies as "good" the people you had sex with, reduce the likelihood of conflict and when it does, people are less angry at each other. When people are already angry, sex will deactivate the stress circuit in the supervizor, so reconciliation is easier. They develop a pozitive bias, against each other. This is a calculated procedure, even if no 1 is in the mood, because they know that the orgasm will blur there judgments, this of course still works with traditional couples. It also reinforces unrelated side behavior that is potentialy socially pozitive, this is to be understood, in the same way that the teacher got trained. And finaly it can be used directly, to reinforce behavior in others, in the same way the boyfriend got trained to do the dishes.

Probably men's brains see women as authority, if a man obey a woman, the supervizor reinforces the behavior, in order words they are hardwired to be submissive. Women, when they say they want to be loved, what they realy mean is that they want to control you, probably they get turned on by obedient males under thee skirts. A litle theory about why women love horses, horses are big, powerful, very muscular beasts, under there control, the supervizor gets confused, considering it to be a human male and adds the horse in his repertoire of goodness. Societies views about maleness and the "asexual purity" of women interferes with that system. Males are wired to show off, its to impress the very critical females, to look having beater genes then what they realy have. In the same way, women are wired to look more, beautiful(fertile) then what they realy are. By tweaking maleness standards of the society, males will simply try to reach those standards, no mater how unethical they may be. In the same way that women try to folow societies standards of beauty, no mater how thin that is. This male pride, probably can acount for the bulk of, honor killings, forced mariages, vendetas, honor suicides, low status of women and related barbarisms. In these societies a male with out honor faces real consequences from the rest of society.

Polygynandry isn't very popular, while its the only available possibility to bonobos(and chimps). On closer inspection this isn't quite true qualitatively. In various cultures we have things like: loose definition of mariage, temporary mariage, concubinage, serial monogamy, complex sexual arangement short of mariage, considerable number of ilegitimate children, prostitution, etc. We could say, that the de facto, serial monogamy practiced in developed countries, is very close to polygynandry. So explicitly, polygynandry almost doesn't exist, but in practice a lot of cultures are quite close to it. Presumably the variations are adaptations to local practical realities. All thies variations, leave the possibility open, that a bonobo-like human society is indeed possible to function, despite the fact that no example exist. Contemporary jealousies, can be understood as the consequence of the absolutes of monogamy. In monogamous cultures, you are 100% with or 100% with out some 1, thus distress is increased. In polygynandrous societies, your stock shares go up and down, but not 100% or 0%. Monogamous relations must be intense, because they must emulate the comfort of an entire group, its a compensation mecanism. Poligynandrous groups aren't the equivalent of n times a monogamous relations, your quota of love need is dispersed over multiple individuals, theres more in the whole then in the some of the parts.

About the future

Because of restrictive sexuality, heterosexual groups are still far removed in to the future. But exclusive homosexual or bisexual groups, should be able to set them selves prety fast, there entry dificulties are much lower. It would be an interesting experiment, to see how well they will do, or not.

They are important practical benefits for polygynandrous groups of hefty sizes. At a personal level, rationalize tasks and achieve economies of scale, so chores are done faster. It doesn't take 10 times longer to cook for 10 people. Home skooling, certain adult training,lower reliance on out side services, higher probability that some 1 will be able to fix/do some need, great pooling of experience and wisdom. Much higher security, who's going to atack a big group of adults? There less probability that the house is left with no 1 inside, most thieves prefer working in empty houses.

Important economies of scale in consumption, bulk buyings, comercial quantities. Aproximately as the number of people increase, costs increase only as the √ of the people, for relatively few people at least. For example, women could put all there shoes together, great diversity in shoes, for a small shoes/women ratio. A big mansion, is cheaper per m², then the some of multiple smaller houses with the same total m². No need to buy food at retail prices, you can buy food directly from the farmer. An internet conection of comercial size(cheaper per kbit). Lower heating bills. Buying just 1 DVD for everybody. Carpooling. Comercial sized, 1 room refrigerator. Restaurant ovens. You can work less, for basicaly same real income. Gives stability and security, unlikely that all get fired or killed at once. No need that every 1 works at an outside job, maintaining a mansion, is several peoples work. With the crisis you may want to give it a serious thought.

More complicated, and requiring more organization is production. The least complicated would be food processing for own consumption, stuf like cheese, ketchup, jam, buter, ice cream, etc... Other types of processing, like making your own soap or certain simple medication. At a higher level, production for self consumption of more complicated products. In certain products, patent fees are so high, that even with out economies of scale it becomes interesting, for example in certain medication its 90%. Sory, but i just don't see how patent laws will be unforced here. At a higher level still, cooperatives with other groups, for economies of scale, in production of self consuming products. Comercial endeavors require a higher still level of organization. With strong group identity, much higher fidelity in the group, then any comercial enterprise could ever achieve, like family enterprises. Strike? What's that? More prone to do sacrifices of any kind.... A litle enterprise can be run entirely, or mostly by a single group. For bigger structures, they could do the out sourcing. Evolving to the point that a big company, is completely hollowed out, and is runed by a litle democratic federation of groups.

Of course at a size of 120, it would become activities of industrial size, with all the related gains.

Re-emergence isn't straight forward, it would probably have taken a considerable amount of time before bonobo-like organizations re-evolve independently. Cohabitation over mariage will continue to spread. First reduction of corporal punishment on children, more breastfeeding, baby cariers, that makes more tolerant and sociable adults. Intentional communities. Firsts future generations, unrelated males(but the younger the beater), with todays sex openess, cohesion will be low, and max group size is low. The internet helps here, by facilitating important numbers of rather similar people to meat each other. In Egypt(2009) a couple was sentenced for 7(man) and 3(woman) years in jail for engaging in swinging, the important here is the fact that with out the internet they would have never being able to atempt this in a conservative country. Men that grown together from firsts generations, stay in same group, cohesion increases, max size increases. A first substitute for "sex cohesion" would be massage between group members, later expanding. Further development in sex opennes, increase max size further, until theoretical maximum, is reached(100). The biger the group, greater an advantage it has over aquisition of resources.

He again found himself suddenly in another room, where many people were seated around a table, just like the one before, and in the middle of that table was -again- a pot full of food. Those people also held the same kind of long spoon in their hand. But every one of these people was full and happy, because each would dip his spoon in the pot and feed the person near him....

[edit] public sex

Whats exactly is the rational for the ilegality of public sex? Animals don't have issues with it. Pornography doesn't afect in some toxic way the viewers. Its as rational as the prohibition of masturbation or nudity. It seems that it was aceptable in ancient greeks and romans. Less ancient, pacific islanders where ok with public sex. I remind you that regular pornography was once ilegal, and still is in most of 3rd world countries.

Future evolution, due to cultural evolution: Pornography initialy contributes in lowering sensibilities.

Explosive efects when pornography is introduced in the 3rd world, in what its usualy very conservative societies: Post taliban afganis, can now watch hard core porn via satelite, in huge contrast, the local TV, is heavily censured. Quote from an oficial "pornography is a problem, but 1 largely confined to a small number of young men [...] Seeing women like this is not normal.". Remember the 1 laptop per child project? In 1 used, they found porn images downloaded from the net.

The point here is, that other then doing what Kazakhstan telecom is doing, its unblockable in practice. So the desensitizing efect will hapen, and will not be reversed.

Public sex not legal in almost all cases now, but a lot of people have this kind of fantasies or fetish(like the classic, in a cemetery O_O), and will risk a fine. I think tourists tend to do that, they feel more daring away from there parents aparently. The internet will help a great deal, alows great control of audience in exhibitionism(and usb sex toys). At a more personal level, consecutively: you watch porn with friends, get invited to watch friend, with boyfriend/girlfriend in front of mirror, get herd by neighbors(legal?), invite friends to watch you, group sex, the internet, and finaly the outside world. At a more societal level, the very fist step would be penalties going down, then, special places(certain, bars, cafes, beaches...), special ocasions, special hours, greater leniency with old people(because at 80+, its has less glamor).... Soft acts at first, then harder stuf. Gradualy becoming the norm everywhere. Again, as always, all this smoothness, in the possibilities, permit people to lower there sensibilities by small increments.

[edit] bi

That we are all bisexual, is not my idea, its Freud's and Kinsey's idea.

Yes, i know a lot of you don't like this part. I remind you, that from the point of view of the brain, sex is no diferent then taking drugs, its like smoking or eating candies. The brain, will associate as "good", with what ever you have sex with. It just doesn't care, if its your hand, a dildo, a sex doll, a dog, extraterrestrials, oposite or same sex humans. Its just small print for him. About the issue, the whole point is to create, basicaly what is an adiction, with the members of the group, a neuronal interdependence. It must be all members of the group, not just half, or else, it will disintegrate, members will not be able to overcome there rivalry.

Contrary to what you might think you know. Theres nothing in the brain, that is hard wired saying homosexual sex is not OK. Actualy the concepts of heterosexuality or homosexuality, as comonly understoold, are too complicated notions, to get packed in a gene and then hard wired in the brain. There are various wirings, that target fertile potential partners, but this on its own is far from a sexual orientation as comonly understood. We learned the rest when we were children, in the same way the litle monkey learned to fear white bunies. We are phobic like the [DATA/development()/Woman Terrified Of Cotton Balls.ogv coton ball woman]. Or more relevant, in the same way you learned that nudity was wrong. Do you believe that the brain is hardwired to be anti-nudity? This demonstrates how powerful learned social norms during childhood realy are. Contrary to a first naive logical induction, homosexual sex taboo makes as much sense and are as artificial as nudity taboos. Heterosexuality is the product of complex interactions, homophobia is 1 of them. We are not hard wired to be bisexual, in the usual understanding, we are hard wired to be "afectionately" heterosexual, but behavioral bisexuals. The term sexual orientation is flawed and biased to begin with, a 19 century invention(figures), more corect would be afectionate orientation, that's for life, while sexual arouzal per see is more volatile, sex being just a way to be afectionate; its not implied that the 2 are interchanchable. Its all about striking the right balance in intergroup relations, a tendency to pure heterosexuality for reproduction and a tendency to pure bisexualism for cohesion building. If you prefer, we are suposed to be asymetric bisexuals. Extrapolating from todays every day experience is misplaced, when the entire afection quota must be fulfiled by a single person, this asymetry sharpens. There's no contradiction with the biological origins of sexual orientation(oposed to just a choice), but exclusivity hasn't a biological basis. Homosexuality, is around 5% of the population, consistent with something weird enough going on, that we can ignore them.

Women are pure asexual beings. So the taboos here are weak, since it simply dismisses there sexuality all together. There tendency to pleaze others is also recruited for control purposes. The taboo on males targets more specificaly being sexualy penetrated. Men are normaly hard to control, since they are power junkies them selves. So the tric here was to recruit male pride. Men are just so big suckers, they'll do anything to demonstrate that they are manly enough(like women's self abusive diets).

A litle inspection, in animal reveal that homophobia is unique only, in humans. For gays, today(2009) in iran and certain other places of the word, its the death penalty, and until around the 1970s there was a prizon sentence in the developed world. Actual in many animals bisexuality is the norm, playing an aliance building mecanism. Ancient greeks, didn't even have a word for homosexuality, paradoxicaly they where quite homophobic, they perceived bisexuality as normal, not homosexuality. Probably, the baning of homosexual sex, was a divide and conker strategy, to weaken cohesion of the population and make them more controlable by the dictator(Ruhnama). In a similar but more extream fashion, infibulation is a strategy, for controling women. For the readers of ancient greece, it was very clear that Achilles and Patroclus weren't just freinds, the story takes a diferent spin with that clarification. Despotic rulers, wouldn't want there serfs do crazy things like achilles. If we are realy supozed to be purely heterosexual, then why the central government would be bother with a funy 5% of the population? It makes more sense that homophobia realy targets the 95% of the population and homosexuals are just inocent bystanders. This hasn't trivial consequences, bisexual behavior is the bed rock of bonobo like society, it isn't just a perversion, homophobia almost totaly obliterates it. Homosexuality is realy threatening, if you see it from the right point of view. Prior sedentarization, this kind of manipulation was impossible, you had to be able to count on the others, there wasn't a special overclass.

{{quote[182b ] καὶ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ποικίλος. ἐν Ἤλιδι μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἐν Βοιωτοῖς, καὶ οὗ μὴ σοφοὶ λέγειν, ἁπλῶς νενομοθέτηται καλὸν τὸ χαρίζεσθαι ἐρασταῖς, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις εἴποι οὔτε νέος οὔτε παλαιὸς ὡς αἰσχρόν, ἵνα , οἶμαι , μὴ πράγματ᾽ ἔχωσιν λόγῳ πειρώμενοι πείθειν τοὺς νέους, ἅτε ἀδύνατοι λέγειν· τῆς δὲ Ἰωνίας καὶ ἄλλοθι πολλαχοῦ αἰσχρὸν νενόμισται, ὅποι ὑπὸ βαρβάροις οἰκοῦσιν. τοῖς γὰρ βαρβάροις διὰ τὰς τυραννίδας αἰσχρὸν τοῦτό γε καὶ ἥ γε [182c ] φιλοσοφία καὶ ἡ φιλογυμναστία· οὐ γὰρ οἶμαι συμφέρει τοῖς ἄρχουσι φρονήματα μεγάλα ἐγγίγνεσθαι τῶν ἀρχομένων, οὐδὲ φιλίας ἰσχυρὰς καὶ κοινωνίας, ὃ δὴ μάλιστα φιλεῖ τά τε ἄλλα πάντα καὶ ὁ ἔρως ἐμποιεῖν. ἔργῳ δὲ τοῦτῳ ἔμαθον καὶ οἱ ἐνθάδε τύραννοι· ὁ γὰρ Ἀριστογείτονος ἔρως καὶ ἡ Ἁρμοδίου φιλία βέβαιος γενομένη κατέλυσεν αὐτῶν τὴν ἀρχήν. οὕτως οὗ μὲν αἰσχρὸν ἐτέθη [182d ] χαρίζεσθαι ἐρασταῖς, κακίᾳ τῶν θεμένων κεῖται, τῶν μὲν ἀρχόντων πλεονεξίᾳ, τῶν δὲ ἀρχομένων ἀνανδρίᾳ· οὗ δὲ καλὸν ἁπλῶς ἐνομίσθη, διὰ τὴν τῶν θεμένων τῆς ψυχῆς ἀργίαν. ἐνθάδε δὲ πολὺ τούτων κάλλιον νενομοθέτηται, καὶ ὅπερ εἶπον, οὐ ῥᾴδιον κατανοῆσαι.

(Homosexuality) It is regarded as shameful by the Ionians and many others under foreign domination. It is shameful to barbarians because of their despotic government, just as philosophy and athletics are, since it is apparently not in the best interests of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or physical unions, all of which love is particularly apt to produce. Our own tyrants learned this lesson through bitter experience, when the love between Aristogeiton and Harmodius grew so strong that it shattered their power. Wherever, therefore, it has been established that it is shameful to be involved in homosexual relationships[literally, "to gratify lovers" χαρίζεσθαι ἐρασταῖς], this is due to evil on the part of legislators, to despotism on the part of the rulers, and to cowardice on the part of the governed.

(Symposium 182b-d ~385BC Plato 428-348 BC)}}

The pressure was so strong, that those that where suposed to know beater went along. If you remember the nice quotes on the consequences of masturbation, psychiatrists track record doesn't look very bright on scientific independence.

V. PERSONALITY DISORDERS AND CERTAIN OTHER NON-PSYCHOTIC MENTAL DISORDERS (301ߞ304)
 [....]
 302 Sexual deviations
 This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the oposite sex, to- ward sexual acts not usualy associated with coitus, or toward coitus performed under bizarre circumstances as in necrophilia, pedophilia, sexual sadism, and fetishism. Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them. This diagnosis is not apropriate for individuals who per- form deviant sexual acts because normal sexual objects are not available to them.
302.0 Homosexuality
 302.1 Fetishism
 302.2 Pedophilia
 302.3 Transvestitism
 302.4 Exhibitionism
 302.5* Voyeurism*
 302.6* Sadism*
 302.7* Masochism*
 302.8 Other sexual deviation
 [302.9 Unspecified sexual deviation]

Because of the way the brain operates, the supervizor has to activate at least once. Other wise it would never do an association, the frontal lobe is essentialy a blank slate, and folows blindly the directives of the supervizor. Like with any drug, you have to take the drug at least once, to crave it later. If you never took cocaine, you'll not going to crave for cocaine. If you are in the pathological situation, from the point of view of the theory, where you didn't have bisexual contacts, you will not have bisexual cravings. Here, the taboos are fulfiling there purpose, since any "deviant" stimulation is prevented.

future, due to cultural evolution: Supervizor, considers this issue life threatening, so its cemented for good. Not very reversible. Reversion in todays adults, to something like an ancient greek atitude isn't possible. Like the example with the masturbating boy, guilt after an eventual act would probably be ireversible. Strictly speaking homosexuals are completely irelevant here. A loosening of antihomosexuality taboo, like antihomophobia laws, gay mariage, etc will spill over in heterosexuals as generalized bisexuality. People, will feel less pressure to conform and simply act as they where suposed to.

As in anything, there are gray ares in sex, in between homosexual and heterosexual sex. A very gradual transition of acts going from 1 end to the other does exist. Sory if it will get pornographic, what do you expect when discussing "gradual transition in sex acts". Its suposed to be read, as the evolution of future acepted practices, but it can also be read as advices(systematic desensitization).

Between the sexes, women bisexuality is much more tolerated then male bisexuality. Higher aceptance of female bisexuality will act as a trojan horse for male bisexuality. Shemale porn will contribute in bluring the borders. As always, the internet will facilitate all the perverts to do there thing, change will come much faster then with out it.

Women:

The taboo on them is much lower, its going to be rather straight forward for them.

males:

Men and women seem to be hard wired to be suspicious of unknown men. So thats normal, its not going away no mater what. We are suposed to be asymetric bisexuals.

with a woman

1. External prostate massage. Strong massage(no too strong, or internal damage) between testicules and anus, not enough for orgasm on its own but can be sexualy arouzing.
2. Her performing anilingus on him(washed well, and use of a dental dam).
3. Iner prostate massage, 1 finger first, later more fingers, gently like touching the eye(fragile). A lot of nerves down there, the g spot in men is the prostate, the best way to reach it is rectaly. Thats realy weird, what does it do, in there? Shouldn't the male g spot, be on the penis or something?
4. A dildo from girl.
5. Strap on dildo from girl.

with a woman and a man

1. Double penetration: The most interesting act, because its rather acepted, yet, the 2 penises can stimulate the woman, as well as each other inside the woman's body, albeit imperfectly. The porn industry forgot to tell you that detail. Its realy a male-male bisexual act that sliped in regular porn, and got rather normalized, albeit not many people practice it in there homes. Frequently lamented up on, that such close proximity of the sewer and the play house isn't a very sound design. This anomaly constitutes a prime example of the quirkiness of evolution's imperfections and random acidents acting like a rubic cube.
2. Penis fencing, with woman in between. Like double penetration, but the woman is gradualy removed.

male-male

1. Penis fencing. Like double penetration, but with out a woman.
2. Penetrative bisexuality.

If you complain that the anus isn't build for this kind of use, remember, natural selection, often does this kind of recycling, a previous structure, recruited for some completely irelevant new purpose. It would be very interesting to see a study on animal anal and prostate orgasm, compared with humans, acros a variety of species, and specificaly, all our close relatives(any 1 wants to volunteer for the gorila study?)

[edit] age of consent

Damn monkeys, i have to discuss this issue now. No, pedophilia is completely irelevant here, the section is about 99% of the population. Pedophilia may or may not had evolved for beater child caring, but in any case this is irelevant here. I'll remind you, that all(above and below) are tied together, you can't simply dismiss the parts you don't like and keep the rest, bonobo like society is 1 pakage.

historical

The most famous case was the ancient greeks, but by no mean abnormal or unique by ancient standards. They had an elaborate and strict societal etiquete on the issue, it wasn't free love in all directions, it was almost like a temporary mariage. It was viewed as an important educational and social institution, the older partner was in his 20s(no old goats), was suposed to provide and care for the youths education, be his mentor, care for his socialization with other high status adults, and if the youth did something wrong, the adult partner was punished in his place. It was considered an honor and great responsibility to become a pederastic partner. Harmodius and Aristogeiton, today known by very few, but where at the time a famous pederastic couple. Of course, all that was only for males, women where just unimportant. As you may imagine, historians self censored the issue until the begining of 20th century.

This form of male-male bonding, is a very close equivalent with male-male bonding in bonobos. With the fact that this custom was widespread in ancient societies, it Hints that it could have roots in a much older custom, spaning milion of years.

Less ancient. You may have heard of Romeo and Juliette, from a dude called Shakespeare. Juliette was 13("not quite 14") and her mother gave birth at the same age, Romeo was "young". I bet you didn't expect that 1. There suicide doesn't actualy make more sense now? Of course there are other rewritings of the past to fit it to today's standards.

The ancient greeks and countless other cultures, were they all sick? Where they abusing there own kids? For centuries? Don't forget, that in our christian past, all sex was sinful, even masturbation, procreative sex was just a necessary evil. Sex was ok only only inside mariage, so mecanicaly adult-child sex is automaticaly forbiden.

comparisons

In the past women were considered and treated like children. This was the rational for there lower status, no vote, aranged mariage, husband/father had power over them... Corporal punishment on women, was regarded the same way as corporal punishment on todays children. In these societies, the wife automaticaly always gives her consent, so a husband legaly could have never raped his wife. Actualy no need to go centuries in the past, just look saudi arabia, women, literaly, can't do anything without a male guardian, not even go out side. Women, where/are ....intelectualy inferior, so they need(ed) the guidance of an enlightened male.

In a similar rational, blacks, where slaves because that was beater for them. The argument of "can't decide for them selves", has being used and abused in the past on adults. This demonstrates that there is a great potential for arbitrariness with that argument, just declare them unfit to decide and you can do anything you want with them. These types of arguments constitutes important variables of cultural evolution.

yes, i'm claiming that on this issue, its all over again the same neural mecanism, its simply discrimination. The only diference, this time, is that children can't syndicate and loby for them selves, only paranoid parents. The impossible adult-child sex consent is a paralel of the impossible spousal rape, thru similar neural circuits.

Depending on juristiction, age of consent varies from 12 to ... after mariage, looking only the developed world it still gives quite a margin of 13-18. Does it suposed to mean that 14 year olds in spain get damaged, or that in malta they are over protected? They can't be both right. This indicates that the corelation is with social aceptance, not anything biological.

hysteria

The issue is an example of moral hysterical panic. It is similar to a religion. An absolute truth that can not be questioned, the oposition is the devil and theres a "Hell" that must be feared.

In short there 3 major aspects:

1. confusion with children protection instinct. Supervizor should be agressively paranoid, for natural selection, if your children die, is as if you died.
2. As it stands, its true that a majority of child-adult sexual contact are harmful, in our society.
3. Pedophile-phobia hysteria, like homophobic hysteria. People get sexualy exited with children and the rezulting conflict in the supervizor, is resolved in the same way as with the homophobes. We can setle this with an experiment similar to the homophobes experiment, a litle questionaire and genital organs response detector, in the presence of child pornography of some sort. The best would be real child porn, you just need the right authorizations. Becauze of the expected huge resistance, we can setle with border line erotic content(junior idol), legal child nudity contents(nudist, professional images), realistic artificialy generated(3D), less realistic content(lolicon, shotacon, cartoons...). Of course the quality of the study will sufer acordingly. I would expect higher responses from women, the younger the kid the higher the response. I'll be very interested by the rezults, i bet the researchers will get fired if they get the "wrong" rezults.

Hysteria, leads to 0 tolerance laws.

• A 17 year old was acused of child pornography, for puting on the internet photos of her self.
• 2 children, below the age of consent, where both prosecuted for child sexual abuse .... on each other.
• A 17 year old got 10 years, for consensual oral sex from a 16 year old.
• Alan John McEwan was fined 3000AU$ and 2 years probation, for child porn possession, consisting of a cartoon spoof, depicting lisa and bart simpson doing stuf.
• iwf's wikipedia block for child pornography, over "scorpions virgin killer" album cover, issued decades ago, spread all over the internet in countless numbers
• Various problems to breastfeeding mothers.

Yes, 0 tolerance laws, mean in practice 0 inteligence laws. Age of consent laws are handled as badly as anti-piracy laws(Jammie Thomas-Rasset 1.920.000$ for 24 songs).

Today policy about children's sexuality. Adults pretend, or want to pretend that children are "pure" and "inocent".

In short you are phobic of the isue, you are afraid(like the litle monkey and buny, or the [DATA/development()/Woman Terrified Of Cotton Balls.ogv coton ball woman]).Proof? Children's(not teen's) masturbation is taboo for parents. If you say no, then what's your explanation about the masturbation taboo?

psychiatrists and psychologists mobs

(Sory if it gets too "sily litle americans", but a lot should be transferable in other places of the world)

Psychiatrists have proven again, and again, and again, that they just repeat what society what to hear. In the 19 century, they said countless horible things on masturbation, they even "cured" severe cases, with castration and excision.

Drapetomania(run away frenzy) was an other 19th century mental disease. As you are very well aware off, the negro's race natural place is to be slaves of there superior white masters. So a negro slave runing away from, his master, can only mean that he has a mental illness. What else could it be?

In the 1970s sily litle american psychiatrists declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder, around the time it got legalized. The litle sily americans weren't special, in other countries too, it was a mental ilness.

And today:

A litle grudge to the sily litle american psychiatrists. Whats that wave of diagnosed children mental illnesses? bipolar is the favorite it seems. Whats all these prescriptions of psychotropic drugs to kids? Thats gross.

On topic. The American Psychiatric Association states that sex with children is "a criminal and imoral act", sounds very scientific, they should also give there "scientific" opinion on mariage. The issue is heavily politicized, corect science on this goes out the window. Psychiatrists are just scared for there jobs, they auto-censor them selves. In your opinion, what would hapen to a psychiatrist career if he said other wise? You know the answer. The study of Rind et al, did just that, they came with the wrong conclusions, it was condemned by the US Congress it self, in house of representatives 355-0 and 13 abstentions, in the senate it passed unanimously(i remind you that we do not vote the truth!!!). The American Psychiatric Association even apologized and basicaly added that no mater what the research will ever say, sex with children is imoral. And they expect to be taken seriously.

Child sexual abuse, is defined as ANY form of sex period, under any circumstances. Research, is worthless, since very heavily biased by rapes, since is completely ilegal. Like taking only the cases of rape from the courts, or studying only victims that are in the crazy house, and extrapolating to the general population. Victims, real or just legal, have on average worse statistics to begin with. Broken homes, single mothers, poverty, alcoholism.... Even non victims don't have perfect statistics, the rezults have to be compared with non victims. Thats a great number of confiding non linear factors. With these standards, even heterosexual sex is harmful. From all that, they conclude that its the sex act it self, on its own that creates the majority of problems. I don't know where they found that, certainly not in the data. Maybe, at least if they compared with adult rapes, that would be more meaningful, but how to calibrate the comparisons, i don't see how, you can't simply do a naive comparison.

They speculate that the perception of a "sexualy abusive event" as "positive" or "neutral" is ilusory. If you say you are traumatized, you are. If you say you aren't, you are in denial(like Thabo Mbeki). If you say it was neutral, its because you don't make the conection between your abuse and everyday problems(like corporal punishment). There theory isn't scientific, its impossible to legal victims, or anybody, to prove there ok.

psychology

pedophilia and todays victims have nothing to do with the issue. Pedophilia and child abuse victims have as much relevance here as homosexuality and prizon rape in the bisexuality section.

We are sexualy functional from before we are born. If it was inherently harmful surely, natural selection, would have blocked this somehow. Or simply harden us at psychological level. That sex with children is inherently harmful doesn't make any evolutionary sense. Technicaly, for the brain, is like eating candies. The supervizor, reinforces the synapses, and at the same time, tries to classify as good any other regularity it can distinguish. Theres no possibility for damage here, apart adiction maybe. Age of consent are too high, after they are fertile, nature would know beater. On average 13, but is subject to environmental influence. Why have fertile animals, if they are so fragile, that they must abstain? And only in humans? And human males have an atraction pic to females of 16, degrading gradualy before that, that too doesn't make sense. Sex drive in kids is also anomalous, sure its lower then in adults, but it isn't 0. Why give them a sex drive? To make them masturbate? Whats the point?

Its not just a perversion, or just fun, its suposed to make a real diference for the beater. In a sexualy relaxed society, violence levels should plumet(S-SAD theory).

All the rest is from learning, like the litle monkey being scared of white bunies, or the coton ball woman or the nudity taboo. For example kids, have to learn that masturbation is private, its not wired or they simply "mature" or "out grow it"; they don't just stop on their "own". Its not unreazonable to expect, that if they where left totaly on there own, they would soon be behaving like litle bonobos. Harm comes, from eventual physical violence, psychological violence, reaction from adults, disaproval from society(conformity instinct). They learn artificialy high boundaries "age apropriate healthy boundaries", there sexuality is totaly supressed. They are teached not to do anything under any circumstances, its completely sanitized, its not surprising that when it does hapen they get problems. Its like abstinence only sex "education", its bad for all ages, not only teens. They are taught to expect something terible, in contrast of a culture like say ancient greeks, where they where suportive, this is significant, becauze they do sweeping overgeneralizations. Naive extrapolations from todays society are pointless. Contemporary sex education, would probably be considered child abuse by ancient greeks. Its like teaching to kids, that hell is a real place, that you realy will go if you are naughty. The issue is socialy overblown by cultural conditioning. If culture, treated sex like shaking hands, the brain will also see it as not a big deal. Theres a hiden circular reazoning, introducing bias in the observations and self generating the "predictions".

With retarded people, there parents have a taboo atitude with sex. When retarded people do have consensual sex, becauze they are afraid of there parents reaction when its disclosed, they claim they where raped (psychologists call it "rolling over"). Like the poop eating pupy, they try to clean up the best they can(dog or human supervizor aren't that diferent). This phenomenon is transposable to actual children, this explains why victims, generaly don't tel there parents, or wait until they are dead to come out. They are overtrained to expect punishment, from there parents and society at large. This of course is still valid at various degrees for the several point above.

Particularly strange is the apearance of problems in kids where no violence was used or weren't stressed, and problems actualy apeared later. The supervizor can't make associations like that, spaning back a large amount in time. Pavlov dogs, learn to salivate only if the bell rings close enough to when the meat is present, if you ring the bell the next day its not going to do anything. More closely, if your dog poops on the sofa, and you beat it up the next day, he will never figure it out. For problems to apear, its obligatory to be intensely stressful, or the supervizor will never bother to start trying to make negative associations and create phobias. The most reazonable explanation, is that in these cases, the supervizor made an association with adults overeaction, not the ilicit act.

Remember the supervizor, isn't very smart, it makes assumptions and when it considers that life is threatened it makes paranoid extrapolations. Treatment should be standard anti-phobia treatement. In my opinion, determining what the associations are, and desensitise them will give far beater rezults. Again, it sounds strange, but in our case, the symptoms are the disease. For example, symptoms of sensitization against sex, simply needs a desensitization therapy of sex.

Kids "can't consent"? this is simply discrimination. When was the last time you forced a kid to eat food it didn't like? You just ask them, and they just like it, or they just don't like it.

Related somewhat to the issue, should it be legal for retarded people to have sex, ...ever? Whats the diference with children sex?

education

Child sex has potential important educational benefits. Today, its either some form of bribe(candies) or punishment(corporal punishment). Some form of sex, at a rate that they are physiologicaly able, should be as efective, to reinforce the whanted behavior, in the same way adults can be sex trained(boyfreind doing the dishes). It would be much healthier then, candies, corporal punishment or some other bribe, and from s-sad theory, violence would be rarer. In bonobos, the babies are iniciated by there own mothers, it seams plausible that the same thing was hapening with humans, in prehistoric times. A kind of built in, free, bribe material available, for care givers to control the young. Given the fact, that kids are sterile, for quite some time, when there's incest, it cauze no practical problem what so ever, from the point of view of natural selection. Actualy this kind of incestuous behavior by immature individuals is demonstrated in many species. This would presumably reevolve very gradualy. Of course adult fertile incest is no less of a problem.

Puting children all togather is a modern travesty, this hapened only because of skools, for economic reazons. Before that, children where always integrated with adults, in most cases where treated as litle adults. When they are all together they just copy each othern, for beater and for worse. When directly integrated with adults, they copy the adults(hopefuly for the beater). Integration of the young in adult society, among other things, should reduce child delinquency. In the context of bonobo-like society, child sex plays an important role in social integration, in a group of important size. Other wise it will be hard to adapt once they are adults. It follows, that for conflict rezolution, prevention and reconciliation reazons; in general child-child sex and in particular none fertile inter-sibling sex is needed(opposite sex siblings must be separated at adulthood).

my only concrete proposal

I don't have any ilusions, most people will just reject this subsection out right. Its like abortion, once people have taken sides, thats it. Its not just a mater of proof and logic, if only it was that simple. Its guilty until proven inocent. Its an absolute truth that can not be doubted. Its complex becauze there's a hiden circularly reinforcing argument. The discussion has to be kept as simple as possible. I can see only 1 way, as when you gradualy aproach your hand to a hot metal, to see if its safe to grab. Its already acepted that close to the of age of consent the problems are few. So my proposal is to very gradualy, liberalize laws of entire society and apropriate sex education, and simultaneously check if various relevant statistics got beater or not(without cheating). Thats crystal clear, no hiden self referential loops, simple, real, unbiased, stupid proof statistics, while the feared cost is small, since the liberalization is small. Of course this works the other way around too, if you increase the strictness, you should see a degradation of relevant statistics. You simply move the bar any way you see fit until you can measure rezults. And thats the only thing that maters, rezults, theories are irelevant, you don't need to understand what you are doing, can't get any simpler, you measure the rezults and act acordingly to improve the situation. What kind of harm is that, that don't leave negative traces in statistics, or that even leaves pozitive traces? I'm predicting that if you increase it enough, you will start seeing a clear degradation, so your only option is to go the other way. If you decrease it, you will see improvements in statistics, so this will compel you to decrease further. I'll repeated again, rezults are king, its engineering, its trial and error. The practice, is when it works but we don't know why, and the theory is when we understand everything but nothing works.

In more concrete terms. You either increase, or you decrease the bar, but you DO NOT leave it where it is. If malta doesn't want to experiment with age of consent at 17, they simply experiment with 1 at 19, if they detect nothing, they reincrease at 20 or 21 or 22, or what ever until theres a meazurable divergence in statistics, if it goes up until mariage, well so be it. If Spain doesn't want to experiment with 14, they simply experiment with 12 or 11 or 10, or what ever, if it goes down to 0, well so be it. And of course the sex education threshold is moved acordingly, or you just cheated. See, this is not a conspiracy in any direction, you do what you want, you must do 1 or the other. Of course a downward direction also has a systematic desensitization efect on society as a whole. Just don't sit down, pull down your sombrero and do nothing. If you claiming that the age of consent of your jurisdiction is magicaly the best it can exist, i want to see some sort of vaguely scientific calculation of where ... 18 or...13 or what ever pop out from. If theres a political tie and can't decide in what direction to go, just choose 1 randomly, with a genuinely random selection.

More in detail of possibilities, what "moving the bar" means. Lowering age of consent down to a point, then establish an age of protection(veto from guardians). Things like, evaluation in advance by psychiatrists of the involved, singing a contract of what can be done. Court aproval in advance. Central registrations. Mandatory apropriate training, anything from some weeks to a full psychology degree. Mandatory psychiatric evaluation at regular intervals. Mandatory checks from social services. Diferent standards acording to IQ or education levels or emotional tests... Mandatory use of a electronic bracelet. The mandatory wearing of a microphone and perhaps a camera, recording everything 24/7, in an encrypted black box, reviewed by specialized personel of some sorts, viewable with or with out a court order. The mandatory wearing 24/7 of a stress detector, acessible by specialized personel, with or with out court order. If you find this a tad too invasive, i don't see why you complain, you already forced down on them a chastity belt, so big brother is not so big. There are far more possibilities, small steps possibilities, then a rigid blanket age limit.

In my opinion, this is an extremely reasonable and practical proposition, given the circumstances. And completely by passes all the nonsense people think they know. No mater what the results will be, we all win from the truth.

pedophilia

Yes, i did say this is irelevant here, but its important to clear up some misconceptions, becauze they spill over to the theory, again the theory is about 99% of the population, not the oddballs.

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation(or afectionate orientation if you prefer), period, theres no implied automatic criminal propensity, using pedophilia in place of sex ofender, is like using "heterosexual" in place of male rapist of women. That sex with persons below of the age of consent is ilegal, doesn't justify that they should be discriminated against. The way that the term is used by the media is technicaly ilegal, albeit no court will ever give such a judgment. Yes, psychiatrists define it as a disorder, it's not the first time that politics gets the above of science. Sex ofenders of any group are not a representative sample of the entire group, male rapists are not a representative sample of men. The bulk of pedophiles are well integrated in society, and simply keep it to them selves.

There human rights are not of any concern here. Its about the myth, that adult/child sex can only concern some kind of degenerate deviant subhuman. The vast majority, look and act normal.

From evolutions perspective. Initialy animals simply pooped there eggs, and then there where gone, obviously this minimalist strategy can be improved, hence nurturing evolved. But how did it evolved? Evolution always works by tweaking whats already there, so something had to get tweaked in to nurturing. First nurturing animals didn't had very complicated social lives, its 1 of there social related aspects that most probably got extra work. "Sexual orientation"(or afectionate orientation), that was active only during reproductive time, was intended to reduce temporary the rivalries between the sexes. If that, started targeting the offspring's, the animal in question will basicaly start nurturing them. In other words, nurturing animals are pedophiles. Hin, yes, i just said that women are pedophiles, but this is under the extended meaning of the word.

future, due to cultural evolution:

It might seem impossible that theres a cultural evolution root, for something that controversial, but there is, given enough time. There is always a gray area, the gray area here, is the arbitrariness of the age of consent laws, great diversity among diferent jurisdictions. So the plausible evolution, is the gradual reduction of age of consent limits, until there abolition with the coresponding apropriate social etiquete. An acelarating factor is going to be the weakening of interstate unanimity on the issue. Becauze of conformity instinct, even a tiny minority of states, will greatly normalize the issue. I remind you, that its assumed here that children can in deed consent.

Before any concrete evolution, a first evolution in penalties will ocur. Gradation is needed in statutory rape penalties, 0 tolerance laws, are by definition dumb. Sound good in principle, but doesn't folow in practice. If brutal rape penalties are as harsh as with blatantly consenting 17 year olds, the population will not acept it. Only 1 public case is needed so that the laws lose credibility.

Aceptance(inclusive) of various behaviors will gradualy expand. Stuf like breastfeeding, Wet nursing and babies sleeping with adults expand to older children. The niples are sensitive, the brain just doesn't care if its a baby or an adult male at there end. Breastfeeding can have a directly stimulating efect of sexual caracter(40%?).

(remember natural selection believes in recycling, like scales becoming tooths)

In breastfeeding, the "packaging" is far more apealing then for regular milk, less dificulty to make them swalow it. The milk it self has more proper nutritional value then regular milk(natural selection guaranty), without acounting for the antibodies present. And the mother gets less fat while eating more. Its beater to drink that, then overly sugarated from the shelf stuf, where no 1 knows what other stuf where added. Sleeping with children is not at all an anomaly, in historic times(and some today), all the extended family lived in 1 room. First with parents, family members, friends... Say at 6 months this is considered ok today, what about 7,8,9 months.... where do you set the limit? More open about sex in the presence of children, like flirting, dating, then gradualy expanding. Behaving with children in flirtatious way. Sex in same room, now mainly acidents, but as brain generalizes to be more relaxed about sex, it will be generalizing decisions in a less cautious way. This either isn't an aberation, when people lived in just 1 room, they still had to reproduce even after there first kid. In grayer area still, consenting corporal punishment, yes i realy wrote this.

The double standards of society will not go away over night of course. Society is generaly more tolerant with boys rather then with girls(truism), and more tolerant with heterosexuality, then with homosexuality. The discrepancy of age of consent and age for watching porn movies is just social hypocrisy. Condemning adults at extremely harsh penalties for having consenting sex with 17 year olds is 1 thing. But you do what when both are below the age of consent, several laws didn't thought of this 1, if strictly aplied both kids should be condemned for statutory rape on each other. This can hapen when age of criminal responsibility is below the age of consent. Hypocrisy at its highest, if you rape, you are mature enough to be responsible for your actions, if you get laid you're a victim and what ever you testify is ignored because you aren't mature enough to be take decisions like that. I mean, comon people, this last 1, just don't add up.

Sexualization of children will continue. Sending sexy images of each other(sexting), technicaly child porn, even less laws saw this 1 coming. G-strings for children. Adds with sexual overtones featuring children, that by the way would not work if adults weren't realy aroused. Todays children are "dressed to sexy for there age". Anatomicaly corect dolls. They may be issues with adult-child sex, but certainly not with masturbation, so buying dildos for litle girls it's OK, right? It's surely healthier then a cell phone. What about a remotely controled vibrator? What about a high end sex doll, whats the problem? Even dogs have sex dolls. Children, paying for professional sex webcams, stripers, prostitutes, i don't think age of consent laws envisaged these. All this will come before more explicit stuf.

The internet will wreck havoc, lawmakers simply didn't see this coming. Live webcams open there can of worms, for example a girl competing for votes on a webcam site, said "and I will have a live sleep cam!". You are probably scandalized, but what kind of reazonable law are you proposing? Less legal activities, like wireless/usb sex toys, over the internet, should there status cary the same weight as normal physical contact for determining statutory rape?

Porn and kids, the hypocrisy here is just absurd, age of consent is below the age that its deemed proper to watch porn, the rule is almost totaly ignored of course. About porn, we can imagine, porn for kids, in a shelf, in a book store along dinosaurs documentaries and cartoons(sort of). Regular porn isn't very "educational", not the kind of education you would like. We should have this for teenagers today, beater then the absolutely no boundaries todays adult only porn. Stuf like, always a condom, or if no condom present consequences(no sex), in general show how it should be done and show the bad consequences when its done incorectly(educational, not just stimulationary).

You'll think, ok why not, but surely child porn, will never be legal. Well, no, even that is not cut and dry, there are gray areas, that already cauzes controversy as we speak. Of course its all about consensual activities that i discuss here, not "normal" child porn. Pedophilic themed main stream porn, shaved pubic hair resembling juvenile genitals, artificialy generated materials(cartoon, 3D, GIMPed)."cute" child stars, being as border line as possible to legality. Model sites, of non nude children seem to have quite a sucess, as close as it gets to legality in the western world. Japan, however is further ahead in the curve with the junior idol fenomenon and the selling of used dirty school girls panties for snifing(i'm not making this up). In Denmark at least, privately owned images by adult boyfriend/girlfriend in a relation with an above consent minor, is legal. Hmm, promiscuous polyamorous teens, were do they fit here. Sexting is a biger bufer overflow then age of consent laws. Here in the eyes of the law, kids are techicaly producers, distributors and possessors of child porn, victimizing them selves during production, by there friends during distribution, and victimizing there friends by receiving there images. Only 1 dumb judgment is needed to undermine the credibility of the law to the eyes of the public. Comercial child porn under 18, could remain ilegal, but what about amateur pornography? When 1 jurisdiction will legalize porn of a 17, its still child porn in others, whats going to hapen? Reminder that there are jurisdictions where regular pornography is ilegal. 17 year old pornstars, could have preliminary psychiatric examinations and social services vizits. Could be strictly registered at a governmental database, some monopolistic governmental site, all other sources remaining ilegal. Theres room for more then just a hard age limit at 18.

Very generaly, age limits of various acepted behaviors gradualy go up or down until theres no exeptions. This, not because of some higher truth, or out of perversion, but because its realy socialy beneficial, it achieves higher social cohesion and lower general violence levels.

[edit] suplement

• Toba catastrophe theory, 70-75 1000s years ago, super volcano eruption, the most powerfull in the last 2-25M years, redioussing total population possibly to 2-20.000. Actuall origin of the theorized change in our behavior? It starts to get a bit too old, but seams interesting hypothesis.

• possible hard experimental evidence. Well, the theory is about a living species, us, its not unfalsifiable. With this theory, we are realy interested about our future, not our past. It's scientific, but not necessarily true.

1. bonobo-human-chimp gene comparisons of the limbic system.
2. Just weight a century or 2, we'll see if our culture evolve towards that.
3. put groups, actively incrementaly ever closer to the target conformation. 35 years timeline instead of centuries? Potential problem with local minimas.
4. A "Truman show"-"Lord of the flies" type of experiment. Technicaly its perfect, but i don't think the bioethics comitee will aprouve this :) .
5. Give a human baby to the bonobos. An other technicaly perfect experiment, but that the bioethics comitee will shot down :).
6. Maybe n°4 and n°5 alredy happened by accident or by sadism.
7. Grow a baby bonobo in a human family and punish it lovingly every time it behaves inapropriatly for his age. Technicaly perfect, and this time the bioethics comitee will have no objections, but it still bothers me.
8. We could try to develop a whole bonobo group, with christian sexual morals, just to see whats going to happen(the bonobos are an endengered species).
9. In general attempt to use bonobos as a proxy for humans, and see how easy or hard it is that we make them behave like humans. Technicaly OK, bioethics comitee will be OK too, but it bothers me even more then the previous 1. (Adult chimps are dangerous, we should redious there muscle mass, and pull out there tooths)
10. Just keep torturing bonobos untill people say the theory is corect. I'm sure we could find a way to pass alive skining on TV as a usefull and nescaisery psycology experiment to the bioethics comitee. There past decisions seem to suggest that.
11. invent a time machine.

Just that? Of wich 1 i'll be gone to dust long before i get to know the rezult. It's becauze of n°4, that this IS science, since voila, a possibility to falsify the theory.

And of course a zillion other faint hints.

• Add here sujestions for hard experimental evidence, morality is not an issue, maybe it will give ideas for something doable.