But for a sexually repressed group of young men, 72 virgins probably does sound like heaven.

Someone should make an effort to point out to them that the white raisins, no matter how sweet, probably ain't worth the effort. I mean, I've been around the block a time or two, and in my experience, sweet white raisins are a tad easier to come by than 72 virgins. I doubt I could find two (of age) virgins in my locale, let alone 72. . .

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Dear Mr. Neely,

I welcome you back.

M. Twain

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

*chuckle*

No - you have your periodicals mixed. "Psychology Today" went "popular" in the early 90s and publishes a vast array of trendy Oprah-type articles. It does not only publish articles related to the discipline of psychology. They attempted to increase circulation by reaching a broad audience, but they have not succeeded.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Primary purpose, apparently. Sole purpose, certainly not.

You apparently are overlooking the evolutionary value of pair-bonding couples given the long gestation and long infantile stages of human development.

Sexual pleasure has a clear evolutionary purpose. It is not merely some 'side effect'.

Greetings and Felicitations,

I never said it was. In fact, I made a special point of stating that sexual pleasure has other purposes.

Is it not? What is the purpose of sex? The basic purpose of sex is getting gametes together and creating offspring to get gametes together and creat offspring and....well you get the point.

The fact that sex is pleasurable may have grown to have other benefits such as keeping people together. However, even that does not, in general, last. If that were the case then there wouldn't be a need for infidelity. Infidelity provides a means of spreading your gametes around and making sure that you propagate your genes in a wide area.

In Peace, Eglaelin

__________________

You unequivically stated that sexual pleasure is a 'side effect' of sexual reproduction and has no evolutionary purpose...

I pointed out that sexual pleasure, of an in itself, has a necessary evolutionary purpose. The long gestation period and prolonged infantile stage of human reproduction requires (or benefits greatly from) pair-bonding. Sexual pleasure that supports pair-bonding is thus an evolutionary strategy in itself, not some mere 'side effect' of reproduction.

To put is simply, from the male perspective the act of reproduction is over fairly quickly. If the man moves on immediately, the likelihood of that offspring to successfully reach breeding age is less than if the man stays around. Sexual pleasure is thus a key evolutionary strategy in producing this effect.

No objections, though I'd say 'primary' purpose.

That is irrelevant because it doesn't need to be permanent to serve the effect. It is most useful in keeping the male around to support the pregnant women during the prolonged gestation period and the extended infantile stage. Once the child is capable of self-mobility, the male role is less 'necessary' as a support mechanism.

Infidelity is not necessary for survival of the species or propagation of one's own genes. It may be useful, but not necessary.

And the desire to spread genes around as far as possible is not substantially hindered by the evolutionary development of sexual pleasure or temporary pair-bonding.

The articles appear to be primarily psych oriented - pop psych perhaps - but psych nonetheless.

A few articles appear to bear a strong resemeblance to what one finds in some women's magazines ... however this doesn't necessarily mean that sociology, marxism or women's studies are the disciplines that inform contributors. I doubt that you would find many people from these areas who would regard it as worth a glance.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out in what way you consider the article on sex and suicide bombers is written from the perspective of sociology, marxism or women's studies?

I'd be really curious to see what you come up with.

So why does suicide bombing not have a much longer tradition in Islam?

and another thing Mark ... since you are our resident religious historian you might know the answer - why 72? 6 dozen ... an odd number isn't it? (and I'd be curious to meet a man who could handle 72 women BTW)

may be ... however one really needs to look at the cultural context. And it is true that while the 72 virgins is something we hear about all the time (there is something titillating perhaps in this idea which is why it grabs the western - especially American - imagination?) it seems to be far less significant among Muslims.


As I said before - many come from a traditionalist collectivist society. The individual reward becomes less significant.

Also - as Dormouse (welcome BTW - good to see you here) pointed out - the history of the region is also a factor. I don't recall if you were around David when I posted a link re the 'culture of honor' which is alive and well in the Southern US. This culture is well and truly alive and well in the ME - and the degree of offence that has been taken especially in the latter half of the last century - is very intense. Dying fighting the west (or even other Muslims who may be seen as betrayers of the faith) may well be regarded as an honourable death.

In fact - if we look at virtually any culture we can see that suicide is linked to either deep despair ( and hopelessness) or honour.

Idealist young men willing to die for a cause are easy to come by in many societies - if the cause is believed to be justified (and the 'culture of honor' comes into its own in a culture that has taken too many offences to its pride). Blowing themselves up to kill an enemy (either reasl or perceived) is the ultimate sacrifce, and may be seen as brave. It is more likely the action of an idealist than someone looking for a good time.

In relation to scarcity of sex - I would then have to ask why at least two of the London bombers were married men? And apparently they are not the only ones who left behind wives and children.

Finally ... for now at least ... since we are kind of making excursions into Freudian psychology ... Eros and Thanatos are generally juxtaposed as opposites. From what I can remember the death wish is generally not seen as linked to sexual desire at all.


exactly. and this is WHY Eros and Thanatos are juxtaposed. You can't spread your genes around when you are dead.

Maybe, but if I look at women and religion - and especially women in cultures where women have had limited exposure to alternate ways of viewing the world - they may be a good source of unquestioning support who are prepared to die for a cause regardless.

FWIW - most accounts I have read of suicide bombers (from Chechnya and Palestine) appear to be women who have lost family members or who have been raped by the 'enemy'. In some senses they feel they have nothing left to lose, and I would say more than protection of offspring it is loss/grief that makes them such willing participants in their own destruction - and that of 'the enemy.'

I don't think that's what Eglaelin suggested. If something has no evolutionary purpose then it's not even likely to be a side effect but rather won't be at all. In fact, most evolutionary developments start out as side effects that in time either become supporting pillars of other developments or disappear from the gene pool.

If sexual pleasure arises from necessary physical processes in relation to the sexual act then it most definitely can be said to arise as a side effect of those processes. It is not the origin (which can be said to be a mere side effect of something else) but the fact that it stays around that suggests that it fulfills some kind of purpose.

As it is, it seems that pleasure during the sexual act is very common, at least among members of the group that we like to think we can measure emotional responses on with some kind of certainty: Mammals. This either suggests that sexual pleasure has evolved many, many times or it suggests that sexual pleasure evolved long before any mammal had any need of the kind of "long gestation period and prolonged infantile state" that you seem to attribute the purpose of human sexual pleasure to, and that that is how we got to experience the sexual pleasure we experience.

The thing with sexual pleasure is of course that it's an awful bonding mechanism. In fact, most males of most species, especially Homo sapiens, will seek sexual pleasure for the sake of sexual pleasure and not for the sake of pair-bonding. You said something to this effect yourself when you said that "from the male perspective the act of reproduction is over fairly quickly". This means that sexual pleasure acts contrary to pair-bonding.

So, since we indeed have the long gestation and infantile periods that you point out and since it indeed seems to be of value to maintain a pairing bond during those periods, we have had to evolve some traits that are stronger than the sexual pleasure that works so well in many species for simple sexual reproduction but doesn't work at all for longterm bonding. Sometimes we call it love, sometimes we get more technical and split it up into components such as attraction, commitment and such. But at any rate, sexual pleasure is not a key evolutionary strategy to produce the effect of bonding. It only produces the immediate reward of the sexual act itself.

How come there aren't a lot of Chinese suicide bombers? They have a shortage of over 30 million women. That's 30 million single men. Why aren't they blowing themselves up?

__________________
Don't make me seem like the unhealthy crazy one, when you're the one who wouldn't tell me what to do!

Perhaps gunpowder has been traditionally used for guns, not bombs (and things like C4 are relatively recent inventions) but martyrdom, which is what it's about rather than the very narrow focus of suicide bombing, has as long a tradition as the religion itself, doesn't it?

Interesting question. I don't think the number is explained by the Hadith it comes from but it'll be interesting to learn if there's some theological significance to it.

Anyhow, isn't it the standing promise that the 72 women will handle the man, not the other way 'round?

Isn't martrydom and sacrifice a component of many religions?

Catholics walk around with an instrument of capital punishment around their necks, celebrating the death of their most revered figure. This is central. Christianity would not exist otherwise.

Was Isaac not to be murdered by the hand of his father for the sake of proving his faith in the one god?

Was the Japaneses kamikaze pilot not happy to be a suicide bomber?

Like you, im not convinced at all that suicide bombing is anything more significant than the willingness to kill and die for ones beliefs. This is ancient stuff.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

This is the main reason I fear fundamentalism so much & why I shout so loudly about it. These people (regardless of their ideological beliefs) are so firm in them that they'd willingly lay down their life (and in many cases, ours as well) in defense of an ill-founded ideal.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

True. So would the capitalist, patriot, and socialist as well.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown