POVERTY, OVERSEXUALITY AND OVERPOPULATION?????

The following essay is from my collection of essays written for my sociology class. Though I am a student of mathematics and philosophy, I have always taken keen interests in sociological studies. In fact, i have taken six courses of social sciences despite the fact that the requirements for my majors are only two. I encourage college students who are active participants on this forum to take both anthropology and sociology for these classes are substantially stimulating.
you are encouraged to write feedback, both critical and appreciative.
as you will notice, this essay is not about repeating verbatum what others have already said, but rather it is a serious effort to present arguments against commonly held prejudices against the poor such as their supposed oversexuality.







Is there really a correlation between the relative higher Birthrate of the poor and Over-sexuality as readily assumed by some conservative social commentators?



The problem of over-population has commonly and erroneously been linked to a so-called over-sexuality of the poor. This fundamentally erroneous view tends to be held by the self-righteous and intellectually unsophisticated elements of the conservative right--- those that would readily and superficially ascribe religion-based-moralistic causes to all human problems. The persistence of this view, even in some intellectual circles, is partially due perhaps to Malthus who--- in arguing for his theory of Population control--- substantially connects human overpopulation to a presumed over-sexuality of the Poor. However, if one were to study the socio-economic situations of poor peasants in Malthus’s time, and take into consideration the universality of human sexual psychology, one would easily recognize that such existential conditions are not necessarily ideal for the frequent enjoyment of sexual intimacy; for instance, a physically exhausted peasant-field-worker who has just finished toiling a hardy plot of land may have no energy for or interest in engaging his wife sexually. Similarly, the wife may be too frustrated and overwhelmed by the daily tasks of child-rearing to willingly respond to her husband’s sexual advances. In other words, these conditions are apparently psychologically too stressful to expect the majority of Malthus’ poor contemporaries to take full advantage of their sexuality, let alone to abuse it. Therefore, contrary to popular misconception, it would be more reasonable to assume that better off couples or individuals are more likely to enjoy sexual intimacy with a relatively higher frequency than their poorer counterparts.

If reason dictates that socially and economically affluent individuals are more likely to engage in and enjoy sexual activities; then what would mislead societies into thinking that poor people are presumably oversexed?

The fallacy apparently comes from the observation that poor women tend to have more babies; but having more babies does not necessarily mean that a woman has actually engaged in sexual activities more frequently than average. For instance, the average prostitute in Amsterdam Sex district has no more babies than the average Dutch mother; and since the average birthrate for poor women in Malawi is much higher than that of Dutch women (prostitutes and married women alike), an attempt to correlate Birthrate directly to frequency of sexual activities would lead to the absurd conclusion that poor Malawi women are oversexed while prostitutes in the Amsterdam Sex district are undersexed.

The misconception would easily be avoided if one cared to consider the relevant factors in the case. For instance, women in most countries do not generally have ready access to family planning that more affluent women in western countries generally take for granted; therefore, these poor women are less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and subsequently more likely to carry those pregnancies to terms. In this example, it is not more engagement in sexual activities that leads to an increase in Birthrate, but rather lack of resources and alternatives.
The same kind of false conclusions stemming from underestimated or overestimated factors can be seen in many arguments forwarded by some conservative social commentators in America. For instance, some have attempted to utilize skewed data of teen pregnancies along racial lines to conclude that black girls are supposedly on average more sexually active than their white counterparts. My refutation is not against the statement itself, but specifically against the method from which the conclusion is inferred.
Where do these conservative social commentators get their data on teen pregnancies?

The data are reportedly collected when teenage girls come to public clinics for abortion or when the pregnant teens eventually carry the baby to terms.



the shortcoming of the data collection becomes readily obvious if one compares two significantly different, but relevant Demographics :
The white teenage Girls in the suburbs generally have access to family doctors, and therefore can terminate a pregnancy without that pregnancy being counted in the statistics (Pregnancy is not considered a threat to public health, so family doctors do not have a legal obligation to report such cases of terminated pregnancies to the department of health). Therefore if one were to attempt to make a correlation between teen pregnancy, race and sexual promiscuity, the conclusion would be significantly skewed; for it would mistake the number of teen pregnancies carried to terms and/or aborted in public clinics (those that are more likely to involve urban Black teenage girls) for the actual number of teen pregnancies( data retrieved from public clinics and maternity wards in hospitals + publicly inaccessible data of teen-pregnancies aborted by suburban family doctors). In other words, any attempt to correlate teen-pregnancy to supposed sexual activity along racial lines using the same flawed method of data collection is bound to give the false impression of an undersexed White girl Vs an oversexed Black girl.



As we have just demonstrated, omission of relevant factors--- whether

by accident or deliberation--- can significantly alter the validity of apparently plausible conclusions to the point of making them meaningless when the disregarded data are finally factored in.

While some will continue to moralistically blame human overpopulation on the supposed over-sexuality of the poor--- a myth that is plausible on the surface, but proven to be fundamentally false--- it nevertheless makes perfect sense, from an evolutionary point of view, for the poor to have a relative higher birthrate; It is taken for granted in sociological studies that the more affluent is a society, the more reduced are its birthrate and deathrate.

How does that relate to biological evolution and the relatively higher birthrate among poorer families? A simple comparative analysis of reproductive patterns of elephants and sea-water fish and their respective evolutionary mechanisms may be sufficient to unveil the fundamental reasons behind the tendency of poorer families to have a relatively higher birthrate.

Why do elephants tend to carry to terms one fetus while sea-water fish lay thousands of eggs? Why do women tend to release on average one egg whereas men tend to ejaculate millions of sperms? These questions may appear irrelevant to a scientifically unsophisticated reader, but they are indeed fundamentally related to our observation of relatively higher birthrate among poorer families.
It is common knowledge that the elephant has no known predators--- of course with the exception of humans whose acquired technology has recently given them an edge over the colossal beast yet docile beast--- so the probability of a single elephant offspring surviving into adulthood to reproduce is substantially high. Therefore, it does not make sense, and may even be quite disadvantageous for a female elephant to carry more one fetus to term in order to ensure the survival of its genes. Similarly, the woman’s relatively stronger and bigger egg does not have to travel dangerous and straining routes in order to be fertilized by a sperm--- it is the fragile and relatively smaller sperm that has to successfully navigate and escape almost certain death in order to reach Promised Land. Therefore, to increase the likelihood of successful fertilization, a man’s ejaculation must contain millions of individual fragile sperms.

It is that same mechanism that is at play in the case of the female sea-water fish with its many thousands larvae. The survival for individual fish eggs even after fertilization is very slim--- the environment is perpetually hostile with countless predators of all sizes from blue whales to tiny shrimps. So, the best way for a female sea-water fish to ensure the survival of some of its eggs is to simultaneously lay thousands of them—by doing so, the female sea-water fish substantially increases its chance of having some fertilized eggs develop into adults capable of reproducing themselves, and therefore carrying the maternal genes into the next generation.
The above scenario is not fundamentally different from a poor mother who lives in a village where infant mortality is very high, and where deadly infections are a daily threat. In such dire existential realities, a poor human mother’s environment is significantly similar to that of the sea-water fish whereas that of the more affluent western mother is equally closer to the elephant’s.

In other words, it apparently makes perfect sense for a poor mother to have numerous children before menopause in order to increase the likelihood of at least one child surviving malaria or malnutrition to become procreating adults.

In conclusion, the poor’s relatively higher birthrate is absolutely not related to a supposed over-sexuality; for they are reasonably expected to be psychologically, socially and economically too stressed to have the liberty of time and the appropriate emotional moods conducive to healthy sexual intimacy. If their existential conditions do not generally allow the poor to engage in sexual activities as frequently, and as qualitatively as affluent people, then the poor cannot be reasonably expected to abuse their sexuality. As expected, a woman who is apprehensive about an incoming eviction order would hardly be willing to welcome her husband’s sexual advances. As we have seen, not only is the relatively higher birthrate among the poor unrelated to a supposed over-sexuality as superficially assumed by many, but it also suitably serves their biological interests from an evolutionary point of view.

As an unknown philosopher once said, the world is inherently deceitful; therefore vast majority of plausible conclusions about the world are bound to be fundamentally false. Nowhere is that truer than in our frequent mischaracterizations of and prejudices toward the poor.

Keen,

My young brother, my objection here is not to repudiate your conclusions but rather to show you some pratical aspects of my personal life so you can understand better the correlations between poverty an overpopulation.I am not ashamed of my conduct then.You said that the conditions of the poor peasants are not conducive to over-sexuality.As you know I spent two and half years working in the mountains of Haiti, living among the peasants in proverty ;do you know my only pleasure during that time was to have sex.I remember certain days I did not have anything to eat but my first concern was where I could sleep tonight in order to have sex with a nice girl.Sometimes I would travel more than two kilometers after visiting different localities just to sleep with a girl in my arms.I am lucky to have only one daughter from these adventures.To say that the peasants are too tired to have sex with their wives are mistaken for most of them have more than one wife.

I remember reading a survey done in India where the surveyors asked the men in the villages why do they have so many children;do yo know their answers:"We do not have tv ;we do not have a dance club or any other means of enjoyment than our wives."Yes it is true that overpopulation is not uniquely related to over-sexuality of the poors ,but believe me it plays a big role.

you were an exception then. you were working for SNEM-- a company that had given you a certain privilege in the countryside. so you were very sought after, which had allowed you to respond in kind. there is also the culture of machoism in haiti-- a man seems to be as strong as his ability to seduce more and more women. taken all these factors into consideration, you were highly sexually active because you were relatively desirable, your social privilege set you apart and therefore compensated for your lack of cash. it was not due to lack of entertainment per se. by poor, i mean people that are both socially and economically marginalized. given your background-- with your having received " bourse d'etudes" from the haitian military-- and a relatively privileged employee of SNEM in my opinion disqualified you as a social poor despite the fact that you may have had cash flow problems.
many theories based on common sense are fundamentally wrong--- for instance, common sense tells us that the earth is flat, and that the sun turns around the earth? but aren't these things fundamentally false? the indian peasants are judging in terms of common sense; but as science has many times proven, common sense can be very misleading and disappoiting.
the idea of a poor peasant having the liberty to have sex as he or she wishes is not true even if they do indeed have a lack of alternative entertainment outlets.
the peasants in INDIA may think that they are having more sex than the better-off because they are correlating reproductive results directly to the frequency of sexual activity. the accused may internalize the same prejudices and therefore make the same error as the prejudicial accusors. for instance, many slaves after the end of the civil war complained that they were better off in slavery than they are in freedom. why? because they were not conditioned to suddenly become autonomous beings; so they mistakingly judged their existential worth in terms of common sense---common sense taught them that there were not many successful blacks around, therefore they were not going to be successful themselves.
common sense tends to be wrong because it concludes from superficial observation; and since the word evolves out of the race of deceptions, then most things that appear to be true on the surface are bound to be fundamentally false.
that is the reason that science succeeds in describing our world while poetry never did and will never do. why? poets see some starts, and assume them to be infinitely numerous. Poets saw that the heart beats fast during emotional rides, and therefore concluded falsely that the heart is the center of emotions.
senior brother, it is reasonable to presume that the average office manager has more sex than the average worker. he can coerce people into giving him sex, his wife has less economic stress to be in the right mood to welcome his sexual advances; and if he is obsessed with sex, he can commercially afford it.
all these factors taken into consideration will prove that the average poor couple are actually having much less than the better off people; and if they are having much less, and the represent the majority, then they cannot be oversexed; for their average sexual frequency would simulataneously be considered the normal sexual frequency due to their numerical superiority. in other words, they cannot be said to be oversexed if their richer counterparts are actually having more sex.
i recognize the possibility of anomalies--- we can find many poor people and rich people that are oversexed and undersexed respectively.

Keen

When you do not know any better your conduct tends to follow the culture of the country you are living.In retrospect I should not say that I am not ashamed of my conduct,because I coud have left more babies in the mountains because I rarely used condom then.But you have to understand for the majority of haitians :sex was the only way to have fun. Your assumption that a Manager has more sex than an ordinary worker is not valid.There is no proof that the Manager is more relaxed than the ordinary workers,although he may be making more money than the average worker.

Let me ask you this :why did I have 5 children born in haiti while I was poorer than job and I have only one that is born in the United States ?I live in haiti for 29 years and in the United States for almost 37 years?I almost forget your analogy of the elephant and the fish is also erroneous because you did not take into consideration that an elephant caaries its baby for almost 2 years, and the male elephant generates only one sperm during ejaculation.I do not think it is because the fish is in more danger than the elephant that is the reason it has more babies.

the analogy is correct because it is an established fact of evolutionary biology!!!!
you were more studdy then!!!!
you were in the prime of your youth!!!! so you have had more babies.
no male of any kind would ever generate one sperm during ejaculation!!!!

Observer Keen,

Je dois vous dire que vos propos se rapprochent assez de ce que disait mon professeur de biologie au secondaire.

Il semblerait en effet que les chances de survie faibles des enfants nes dans un milieu pauvre pousse les pauvres a avoir plus d'enfants.

Il y a les conclusions d'une etude qui est sortie dernierement ou on rejetait bon nombre de ses prejuges sur la sexualite dans le monde. Je crois que cette etude est sortir sur The Lancet (le meme journal qui avait publie le rapport sur les crimes commis sous l'administration Latortue). Je vais me renseigner a ce sujet.

Voici le lien a l'article du journal The Lancet:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694798/fulltext

Keen

It was last week on the Oprah Winfrey's show a comparison was made between a fish and an elephant.I am almost certain that on the show it was said that the male elephant generates only one sperm that traveled for a long distance to fertilize the egg of the female which carries its unborn baby for 22 months.Check it out.

If as you said I were more sturdy at 29 I should be the same way at 30 living in the United States.You have to recognize that in the United Sates I became more educated, my income increased 10000 times ,I have a chance to take my wife to a Gynocologist for family planning,my sexe education was improved .I have the pleasure to take her to concerts in Canergie hall, to broadway shows, we watch TV together etc.I do not think I have 5 children in Haiti because I was thinking that some of them may die.I was promiscuous because it was the way of life in the country .I am ashamed to say that, but it is the truth.

that exactly is what I have argued in my original essay!!
i have tried to get to the lancelet.com, but it requires that I have a password.
by the way, how similar was the article to mine?
my essay is from my collection, i really would like to read that article to see the similarity.
can one of you send me the article via private message?

I tried ,but I could not read the article.