From: cravener@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Patty Cravener)
Subject: Re: Polyamory (was Re: Adults, Children and sex) (LONG)
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:59:55 GMT

It seems to me that perhaps all this discussion of sexual
aberration and definitions of normalcy misses the point. Given
that society's acceptance of or tolerance for various social
behaviors changes over time, perhaps the attitudinal changes are
driven by population biology, and not a product of cognition or
philosophy at all.
The example of social attitudes towards sexual orientation is a
good one.  I believe that examination of the historical record
(legal, medical, psychological, personal letters, news media...)
reveals significant changes in predominant belief systems over
the past 50 - 100 years. The majority of correspondents on this
question seem to assume that the change is related to some
superior understanding of human nature/human freedoms/human
spirituality. In sum, respondents seem to be saying that the
current attitudes toward non-reproductive sexual relationships
are somehow "better" or more "open-minded," reflecting some
expansion of our compassionate comprehension of the human
condition/human potentials.
I wish to put the question to the group, whether the exact
opposite may not be the case. Social beliefs and attitudes may
not be the result of conscious thought or deliberative logic or
spritual understanding or comprehension of the brotherhood of man
or any other high-flown concept, but may be entirely driven by
population pressures. Attitudes and beliefs which appear to be
logically derived may actually be determined by old-brain
instincts, hard-wired into the human system as it were, and
barely remotely influenced if at all, by cognition.
As evidence for this possibility, I cite the overcrowding studies
done with rat populations during the 1950s & 1960s. (Please note
that there are also environmental studies of other mammals that
apply, and social psych. work from 1950 through the 70s... ) When
population density reaches certain levels (varying by species,
but predictable once the species norm is noted) social,
nurturant, and sexual behaviors of individuals within the
population changes in ways that have an eventual outcome of
reducing the rate of population increase. Thus, rats were
observed in strikingly higher rates of non-reproductive sexual
behaviors, often with the same sex. There was also more
interpersonal violence, and a decrease in maternal nurturence.
All of these behaviors are apparant in human populations at this
time, and of course we are aware of/know the exponential rate of population
increase...
It is my hope that people on the net will think, seriously, about
the implications of this question...
For those of you to whom the research alluded to is new, please
acquaint yourselves with the methods and data before flaming your
assumptions that your own ignorance is reflective of broader
information deficits...
The issue is, how much of our behavior, including the cognitive
dimensions of behavior, is volitional, and how much is driven by
population demands beyond our current comprehension. I hope many
of you will reflect seriously on the possibilities...
Cravener@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.edu  
 
Newsgroups: soc.men