quote:
"what was being addressed is schraf's assertion that sex is only used for reproduction and pair-bonding in primates"
Maybe she did that in the past, I don't know, I haven't read the old exchanges. In the current thread, she DEFINITELY hasn't said that.
quote:
"exchanges for power or valuables (like food or grooming services) ARE the animal equivalent of prostitution."
And I wholeheartedly disagree that this is clear at all. First, I haven't found on the web anything about "exchange for services", and the article you referred to, as I explained to my satisfaction, doesn't show "exchange" at all, but primarily sex as reducer of conflict and facilitating relationships in the face of tension and competition.
quote:
" Or equal access to a cardboard box."
Riggggghhhht. See, this is the stretch. Read the report again. This is exactly the example that convinced me that it was inappropriate to compare this to prostitution. This is a perfect example where the sex is used as a reducer of tension, so that the two don't mind each other's presence when they both approach the new box. One of the bonobos is not giving a box, currently in posession, to another bonobo, so that sexual pleasure can be bought. It's a social tool to reduce tension, not an exchange. At least, that's the parsimonious explanation devised by the researcher to cover a variety of situations.
quote:
" and not for monogamous pair-bonding or procreation."
Pair-bonding in the sense of a monogamous, life-long partner? No. Facilitating social tiesand maintaining cohesion? YES! PRECISELY! EXACTLY! That's the theory that the article is arguing for.
quote:
"But there are close similarities in the exchanges of sex for gains in power, access to goods, and services."
The similarities aren't close at all to the human behavior, at least not in the reference you provided.
If you have other references, let me know. I searched the web for a bit and found zip that I could read as supporting your position. Well, I found one site that said "bonobos practice prostitution", but it provided no evidence or citations to back the assertion up.
quote:
"Either way, I assume you found nothing to suggest that pleasure has nothing to do with why they do what they do, and that sex is only used for procreation and pair-bonding."
And, if you read what schraf has written, you'll see she doesn't claim this, either. You're adding on to what she said. Do you think that she's saying sex is for marriage and making babies, and that's it? I can confirm that she believes neither...
You seem to portray sex "in its pure state" as solely about pleasure, and those who have "freed their mind" (yes, your words...) recognize this truth. Which is silly, and insulting. Or maybe you mean something by "its pure state" that I don't understand (what DOES that mean?).
Sex did not evolve solely for pleasure - that's a side product. The pleasure aspect has evolved additonal side roles, and has been isolated through various measures, cultural and otherwise. But you seem to characterize reproduction and pair-bonding as the cultural inventions!
Reproduction IS what sex is about, primarily, in biology. Pair-bonding IS a demonstrated consequence of sexual intercourse in a wide variety of animals (certainly many mammals, I don't know if birds have been studied). Your characterization of "free minded" people knowing the truth, that "pure" sex is only for pleasure is a purely philosophical standpoint.
Now, what does this mean about whether or not Prostitution should be legal?
Diddly-squat.