It was not 'intended' to be 'deep'. I write what I think, and my thoughts are the way they are. I do not 'intend' them to be so.
I see your general point, though... but, why? When there are intelligent people and interesting discussions on this forum, what is the point in unintelligent and unconsidered replies? There seem to be whole forum sections dedicated to them. Surely they could be kept there.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your response. My first post wasn't so much what I absolutely believe, as a summary of thoughts I've been having... posted in the hope that interesting discussion could ensue, so that I could modify or expand my perspective (and so that others could do the same). I prefer truly communicative discussions to hostile debates (where people try to 'prove' each other wrong, while ignoring valid points or information which might force them to modify their viewpoint if properly considered).
So, I'm fully prepared to modify the views I presented if you offer a perspective which is more coherent or interesting. I don't think true logic applies to subjective and limited debates such as those that apply on these forums, but I'm sure that, with the right mindset, it's possible for us (i.e. anybody seriously participating) to learn a lot from each other and alter or expand our own positions.
p.s. Will address Crimson_Knight shortly.
Next, I will address what you have put forth. While sex may be one of the reasons that humans buy into common conceptual frameworks, they may buy into it for others reasons as well (power, fame, wealth, necessity, etc).
There are some interesting cases where sex was held in somewhat different attitudes. In the 60's and 70's, all the rage was about 'free' love. I'm not sure if you had to buy into the culture during that time (too young to remember, lol) there was a certain openness and disregard for the then current conceptual framework for sexual behavior and attitudes. You could say that modern sexual practices (at least in America) are strongly influenced from the acceptance or rejection of the sexual revolution in those times.
Another instance of (free?) sex took place at some temples (I am trying to recall this correctly, so bear with me). There are stories of women at the temples of (Baal?) who offered free sexual services to those who required them for a good harvest, to commune with Baal, etc. I'm not sure what the requirements were for the services offered, but I would assume membership might have been one (though I am not certain). I am not an expert or well read on the history of sexual behaviors/practices in human history, but I could try to help you to find some material about it if you are interested in it.
There is another thing that may stand in the way of total sexual freedom besides the taboo of the human body. I believe that thing is/are STD's. While some are not as dangerous as others, syphillis and AIDS can prove lethal if the correct pharmaceuticals/medical treatment are available. Even with access to the best antivirals available, you would still have to deal with the stigma that surrounds a deadly virus (AIDS) that can be spread from person to person (and cannot currently be cured). You would also have to deal with the economic impact of having to manage AIDS as a disesase state; antiretrovirals are very expensive.
In the long run, I think freedom is just as important with the responsibilities that it brings. I agree that the current system is quite restrictive in the obligatory mating dances that must occur, but perhaps people will hold fast to those traditions until there is no need to have meaning attached to them. Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason for sexual selection in nature (and humans for that matter). I can't remember where I read it, but there was an article about kissing. Women were somehow able to (detect?) if their mates had a different (immunologic?) makeup than their own, and it served as a factor in sexual selection.
In conclusion, there are many ways that sexual selection and the game of mating rituals can be sliced to emphasize and minimize different 'modules' of the house of sexuality (you mentioned building in an earlier post, I couldn't resist )
I would love to discuss more ion this topic n light of other aspects of sex, or more clarification on the mating rituals and meaning that you described in the OP.
W.r.t your first point, I agree completely. Necessity-- specifically hunger-- forced the majority of Europe's population to buy into the conceptual frameworks implicit in hierarchical serfdom for many centuries. It could be argued that this is more a matter of action than belief, but, as I previously argued, the common man cannot usually or consistently distinguish between a deeper identity and his superficial lifestyle and actions.
Sex is, to me, the major factor in much of first-world modern culture. Other factors still apply, of course, but I still think that the sexual openness I discussed in the first post would be equivalent in impact to the emancipation of slaves in the past few centuries.
I am interested in the material about human sexual history that you mentioned. Interestingly enough, many of the most sexually free cultures have also been the most... uh.... ''spiritually''.... developed. Pre-colonial India for example, was the origin of both the kama sutra and the some of the most advanced mystical systems this world has seen. Chinese Taoism had a strong element of what they called ''sexual alchemy''. Contrast this with the sexual and ''spiritual'' repression of Victorian England.
By ''spiritual'', I do not mean religious. I refer to sages and mystics and true holy men.
W.r.t STDs, it is indeed a problem. Hmmm.
I think that it's possible for a much greater degree of sexual freedom without increasing this risk. People fuck anyway, and will fuck no matter what. I'm more concerned with the context in which they fuck, and the actions which lead to fucking. These don't change the likelihood of STD infection unless they somehow make the sexual activity itself more dangerous, or discourage protection... or increase the frequency of sex in general across multiple partners.
Perhaps restriction serves a purpose in that sense, in that sexually cautious and inhibited people might avoid AIDS and end up with a stable long-term relationship and 2 kids. They propagate their genes.
However, I think that it is possible to be far more open about sexuality without increasing these risks. Being naked doesn't lead to STI infection, neither does talking about sex openly and with appreciation of the risks. Fucking in a park is no more dangerous than on a bed (unless you count angry mobs and arrests... but that wouldn't be a problem in the hypothetical situation which I've presented).
I've talked to some biochemists who believe that we might have a Vaccine (not a cure) for HIV within the next few decades. This would certainly alter this consideration, given the ease of treatment for other, most bacterial, infections and the relative harmlessness of herpes etc.
About your last point... yes, indeed. Human sexuality, though, can be modified in expression to a great degree by culture and social structure. I think that discussions such as the one we are having will become increasingly pertinent as we gain the technology and knowledge to move beyond the (*seemingly*) random accidents of culture which have determined how we live and fuck as a species thus far.