I know, I know-

I took a small hiatus. I really did need it. And now I'm back, and more ready than ever to blog your brains out with many examples of systems within the ever growing world of sexuality.

Let's take a fairly classic example of sex ratios within America-
At given point in history, there has always been more x than y until there's more y than x. In this case, I'm speaking of men and women but the meanings behind x and y aren't nearly as important as realizing that both x and y have their own guidelines for being x and y. And when there are more than one over the other of either (men or women; stay with me) the overall guidelines for that group, or society, or even country, shift as well.

From the depths of human nature, men and women have their "needs." Men need to use as many women as possible to, as they say, spread their seed. Meanwhile, women need to latch onto a stable, etc etc etc, man from which she can raise her children and be taken care of and so on and so forth. Anyways, it's not so grand -from the male's perspective- to have the women of the area having sexual relations with the other men. Men, biologically speaking, want to pass on their own genes. But on the other hand -from the women's perspective- the mixing of immune systems is all the better for a women and her children.
At least this is how it was explained to me in my very first human sexuality course.
The point, dear readers, is that when these simple biological urges -these urges, if you will- find their way into modern society, you find that male dominated cultures have much less sexual "openness" than those in which the women are the more dominant.

Lemme rephrase, if there're more men than women in any given whatever, that whatever is going to be more conservative (i.e. the conservativism after the second world war ended and the men "re-upped" in America). If there're more women than men in any given whatever, that whatever is going to be a lot more liberal (i.e. the sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies).

And now the real point: these levels of "openness" shift! Back and forth this pendulum of sex ratios swings leaving us constantly in the wakes of sexual repression and sexual salvation. 

Now, I really could go on and on about this- and I think I will, actually- but I need to shoot an email to my human sexuality professor first.

Stay tuned.

questions on this week's reading-

Regarding the first chapter in Thinking in Systems by Donella H. Meadows, I found myself with 5 questions. These questions may need further explanation, and I do include the page numbers which inspired these thoughts, but I wasn't asked for explanations on the questions-

1. Why do our brains apply the biological/psychological/"natural" systems to our grand institutional ones? (14)
2. Do all her points count? Could she maybe be pushing the analogy too far? (16/17)
3. Do stocks always need time? If a person/group/whatever changes their relationship/perspective to the other elements within a system, isn't the system then just inherently different? (23)
4. Does happiness choose which? (30)
5. Can one opt to choose differently? (31)

Regression and Transgression within Sexuality-

I'm currently reading A History of Sexuality: Volume 1 by Michele Foucault. In it, he explains the process in which the Victorian-Age has shaped our view of sexuality as a whole. He comes at the subject with a filter he names The Regression Hypothesis and breaks down the system as follows:

The Victorian-era regression of sexuality pushed the topic into the realm of taboo which thus propeled the industries of prostitution and porn into almost mainstream society- causing sexuality to become a bigger deal and the Victorian regression to up its ante in return.

In this system, the two sides (regression and transgression) have been fighting endlessly and thus maintaining a sort of stability. And thus ends my first example of a real world system-