Why aren't people having sex in public?

[JohnBckWLD]

@Gozu

Yes yes, but why is it illegal?

Laws reflect the expectations of those who live under them.

You get a 6 year conviction for a beach boink in Dubai
vs.
Up to 3 months for an incestuous menage-a-trois on a suburban NYC commuter train.

[DrDeth]

@Gozu

Yes yes, but why is it illegal? I’m asking a broad anthropological question here. Your answer is too shortsighted to be useful.

No, that’s not what your OP specified. Perhaps you might contact a MOD and ask them to change it to something like “why is sex in public illegal?” or “why is sex in public a common taboo”?

[HMS_Irruncible]

@NAF1138

Right, but the OP is asking why we feel this way. Why is it so intimate and private for humans when it doesn’t seem to be for other animals? I have no good answer to the question but want to echo Pleonasts curiosity about other apes and how public/private their mating habits are.

There are animals who copulate privately, and there are some who don’t. However, one thing that many animals get sorted out prior to copulation is establish dominance, territory, and also communicate receptiveness via pheremones. By the time copulation actually takes place, there’s no mistaking who has “won” the right to mate, so the spectacle of mating is not going to set off any unpredictable chains of event. Although humans also have some degree of dominance hierarchies and status signals, we also have the cognitive wherewithal to scheme and cheat and renegotiate the status quo. Having sex in private is most conducive to getting a positive outcome without interference.

[GorillaMan]

@mswas

Yes, I can’t recall the study where I read that offhand. I’ll see if I can come up with a cite for it. It said that about 40% of men historically have bread while about 80% of women have. They studied it by looking at the increased diversity in Mitochondrial DNA IIRC.

That would show the percentage where a bloodline continues. It doesn’t show us all the other men who may have been getting plenty of action, but whose offspring died in childhood, foetal deaths, or even those who didn’t get anyone pregnant at all.

[bup]

Well, sex in humans is a lot more of a social thing than in other species - it’s not just procreation. Bonobos also lead a sexual life, but do it pretty publicly.

So I think it’d be instructive to look at the differences between humans and bonobos. They’re the most analogous species, sexuality-wise, but differ in this apspect. Humans pair off - they’re much closer to monogamous than bonobos. That’s the most obvious difference that occurs to me.

Relative monogamy is valuable in humans because human child-rearing is such a monstrous long-term PITA.

Maybe privacy leads to a closer bond between parents? It’s a stretch, but it’s what occurs to me. There could be an evolutionary benefit in the guy feeling like he has to go to this special place, get in this special situation, to get what he wants. It keeps him around with his mate because it’s such an investment getting a sex partner.

[Malthus]

Having sex necessitates removal of clothing, exposing one to insects and the weather; having sex leaves one relatively vulnerable to hostile people and wild animals; having sex in the wild is often very uncomfortable - the great outdoors is generally pointy or rough and covered with ants, not what you want on your bare ass; having sex when others are present (other than an orgy) is disrespectful, as you are not socializing with them, but ignoring them; having sex can make you look undignified (in spite of Nudism, clothing tends to add dignity).

For all of these reasons, sex is usually considered a more or less indoor and private activity. Notions of modesty probably evolved later.

[DrDeth]

@Malthus

Having sex necessitates removal of clothing, .

Umm, I have had sex in semi-public with nothing but my zipper down and her skirt up. No clothing was removed.

[mswas]

@Mtgman

Coitus interruptus sucks. The more people there are around, the more likely you are to get interrupted, either by a beta male who wants the female for himself, or by a little kid who is curious or wants to play, or a jealous female who wants the male for herself, the list goes on and on. Add in that doing it in public also increases the chances of other non-human attentions. The strong scents, excretions, etc. would draw bugs, ants, other animals. It’s not a party unless the ants show up right?

Enjoy,
Steven

Yeah, it’s difficult to have sex when a toddler walks in on you and jumps on the bed to join in the cuddle pile.

[mswas]

@Malthus

Having sex necessitates removal of clothing, exposing one to insects and the weather; having sex leaves one relatively vulnerable to hostile people and wild animals; having sex in the wild is often very uncomfortable - the great outdoors is generally pointy or rough and covered with ants, not what you want on your bare ass; having sex when others are present (other than an orgy) is disrespectful, as you are not socializing with them, but ignoring them; having sex can make you look undignified (in spite of Nudism, clothing tends to add dignity).

For all of these reasons, sex is usually considered a more or less indoor and private activity. Notions of modesty probably evolved later.

I’m going to have to agree with DrDeath on this one. Pretty much your entire example is erroneous. There are plenty of places to have sex in public. Smoking a joint on a fallen Sequoia and getting down is highly recommended.

The dignity aspect is only a social convention. If society deemed nudity to be ok, one could be perfectly dignified without it.

[DrDeth]

@mswas

I’m going to have to agree with DrDeath on this one. Pretty much your entire example is erroneous. There are plenty of places to have sex in public. Smoking a joint on a fallen Sequoia and getting down is highly recommended.
.

I have had sex in the Redwoods. It was great, I have to admit. You know fallen redwoods sometimes make little roofless rings where you can be in semi-public but be fairly safe from casual observation.

[gurujulp]

@Gozu

Yes, but the comparison is invalid. While only rich men and women have fancy coats and stage coaches, even poor people have penises and vaginas. Sex is essentially free as long as there are people around.

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Common-People-lyrics-Pulp/C8D3FC233198CB01482568A40015F285

“You’ll never live like common people
You’ll never do whatever common people do
You’ll never fail like common people
You’ll never watch your life slide out of view
and then dance and drink and screw
because there’s nothing else to do”

[Malthus]

@mswas

I’m going to have to agree with DrDeath on this one. Pretty much your entire example is erroneous. There are plenty of places to have sex in public. Smoking a joint on a fallen Sequoia and getting down is highly recommended.

The dignity aspect is only a social convention. If society deemed nudity to be ok, one could be perfectly dignified without it.

A counter-example does not invalidate a generality. No doubt there are deep, soft banks of moss one could cavort in and the like - but in general, until the invention of towns, the norm is for nature to be uncomfortable to engage in naked gymnastics in. Beds, and beds inside tents, were designed with comfort in mind. Why would one wish to be uncomfortable, rather than comfortable?

Try having sex in bug season in Ontario, and you will quickly discover that. Mosquitos may be sexy to each other …

Ask yourself the opposite question: why would anyone want to have sex in public, if they have the choice not to? What advantages are there? I’ve done it myself, and the answer is pretty simple - it adds excitement. Much of that excitement is about taboo-breaking - which makes no sense until the taboo is established.

I also disagree that dignity is “only” a social convention. Anthropologically speaking, one of the most widespread reasons for clothing is “display” & to add gravitas. This was probably true of our ancestors as well.

[Gozu]

@Cosmic Relief

This doesn’t speak to why it’s taboo, but Donald Brown’s oft-cited “list of human universals” specifically names “copulation normally conducted in privacy” as a norm universally found in the cultures he surveyed. ((cite)

Wow, kudos on citing that list. It is amazingly interesting! I asked myself whether it was a “human universal” before posting. And even though I would’ve gambled that it was, i’m still surprised to see it listed. Odd.

the visual cue of a couple having sex is highly arousing to the male as well as demonstrates that the female is sexually aroused. So by copulating in public, you’re leaving yourself open to another male literally coming in (unavoidable pun, sorry!) and undoing your work.

I disagree. The aforementionned undoing can be (and routinely is) accomplished with rape. If the woman’s consent is wanted, acceptable courting rituals can be used. The same rituals could be used on any desirable specimenl, however, seeing them having sex should make little difference*.

*Though technically, it offers the women who are best at it a chance to show off, perhaps changing the desirability rankings.

Or conversely, if you were copulating with someone else’s partner, you’d leave yourself open to jealous intervention, which would ruin the moment and possibly get you injured or killed.

Well, you just wouldn’t do it around schkler* obviously. Though I understand the privacy helps assure lack of witnesses…

So, we have sex in private so our spouse can cheat on us and hedge or otherwise alter their genetic bets, that their offsprings might have better survival chances.

Only DNA testing is bound to get dirt cheap and contraception methods perfected which could make the whole cuckolding strategy to fail.

*him or her

edit: nah, that doersn’t make sense. People can always have sex in private sometimes and sex in public other times.

Maybe it’s just a comfort thing?

[Gozu]

@DrDeth

No, that’s not what your OP specified. Perhaps you might contact a MOD and ask them to change it to something like “why is sex in public illegal?” or “why is sex in public a common taboo”?

You say I’m vague, I say you’re too literal-minded. It’s all relative.

[mswas]

@Malthus

I also disagree that dignity is “only” a social convention. Anthropologically speaking, one of the most widespread reasons for clothing is “display” & to add gravitas. This was probably true of our ancestors as well.

Certainly, clothing is the cornerstone of the conspicuous consumption at the heart of status seeking behavior. The wealthier looking our clothes the more status we have. That’s been true ever since hunters displayed their hunting trophys.

However in societies where people walk around naked, I am certain they maintain dignity even when naked.

[smiling_bandit]

Someone said that animals have no shame about being seen while doing the nasty - but this is not exactly true. While they probably aren’t shamed by it, animals mostly try to avoid being seen or being too exposed. This is, of course, limited by their environment and in herd beasts. But most try to find somewhere “safe”.

[Pleonast]

I’m not sure clothing or comfort is pertinent. Are we willing to say that before clothing or shelter was invented, humans didn’t find secluded places to mate?

Bonobos, for example, are much more promiscuous than humans. If they mate in private, then that would imply no human invention is the primary cause for it.

My guess is private mating is for social reasons.

[Malthus]

@Pleonast

I’m not sure clothing or comfort is pertinent. Are we willing to say that before clothing or shelter was invented, humans didn’t find secluded places to mate?

Bonobos, for example, are much more promiscuous than humans. If they mate in private, then that would imply no human invention is the primary cause for it.

My guess is private mating is for social reasons.

The observation may be meaningless, as the development of such things - clothing and shelter - probably predate the evolution of our species.

If you want to know about our pre-human primate ancestors - well, we don’t know if they mated in private or not.

[NAF1138]

@Malthus

The observation may be meaningless, as the development of such things - clothing and shelter - probably predate the evolution of our species.

Cite?
No snark intended. I genuenly want to know if I can use that bit of knowledge without fear in the future. It sounds counter intuitive to me.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Gozu

I disagree. The aforementionned undoing can be (and routinely is) accomplished with rape.

That’s just not true. In general, rape doesn’t “undo” the previous male’s contribution of sperm, not unless it occurred right after the consenting sex. Anyway, we were talking about evolution in general, and it’s a mistake to cast it in the light of modern rituals of consent and coupling.

But I may have not stated the case clearly. I was referring to competition that happens between sperm inside the vagina… when 2 males mate with a female in close succession, the one with the most numerous and motile sperm have the better chance of reproducing. Mammals that are less monogamous have proportionately larger testicles for this reason. Gorillas need not worry about this, being a species where the male dominates a harem of several females, and accordingly have smaller testicles. By having sex in private, the animal doesn’t need to have huge testicles, and is in fact temporarily maintaining a harem of one. Obviously this isn’t a foolproof solution, as evidenced by the fact that humans fall somewhere in the middle of the scale, testicle-wise.