Archimedes Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I've been reading Sex at Dawn lately and am pretty convinced by it's findings and evidence. The book basically argues that humans engage in a multimale-multifemale-mating behavior. Meaning, most people have several different sex partners. It's neither monogamy nor polygamy. One of the argument is comparing ourselves with the body statue of apes. There's only one species of apes which engage in monogamy and that are the gibbons. Males and females are about the same size, sex only happens when the female is fertile. Because of that, the balls of male gibbons are inside their bodies, to keep the sperm warm. Gorillas on the other hand are polygamous. The biggest male takes all women for himself. This results in male gorillas being much larger then females. Our closest relatives are the bonobos followed by the chimpanzees. Both engage in multimale-multifemale-mating behavior, the males are only slightly bigger than females, and their balls are located outside of their bodies, because they are designed for frequent ejaculation. While the chimpanzees are a patriarchal and hierarchical species, in which males dominate and compete for women, bonobos are more matriarchial. The females are in charge and they use sex to strengthen their social bonds and remove competition among males. Bonobos are known for being peaceful, stress-free and sex-crazy. It appears that many hunter-gatherer tribes behaved similar to bonobos. Since females usually sleep with several men during ovulation, there was no way do determine who's the father. Kids were raised by the tribe, rather than a nuclear family. The competition between men had been moved from men fighting over who's getting the girl to their actual sperm cells competing for fertilization. Similar to bonobos, those tribes tended to be more peaceful and egalitarian. When everybody gets to bang, nobody really cares about out-competing the other guy. When it comes to raising children, I think there are several benefits over monogamy. Kids are raised by the collective tribe. This makes it harder to isolate them. We all know that abusers usually need to act in the shadows. I think the likelihood for somebody being able to abuse a kid is much smaller, if more than two people are interested in raising a kid. There are no nuclear families with a abusive tradition which can use the "I raise my kids the way I want" excuse anymore. This doesn't do much if the whole tribe is abusive, but I think if the tribe is interested in survival, it will make sure that abusive people are ostracized. Kids don't experience the pain and fear when they learn that one of their parents has an affair. I think kids are traumatized in western society not so much because of their parents sleeping with somebody else, but the fact that the bond between their parents is weakened and therefore the security of the child put in question. This doesn't happen in those tribes. People are encouraged to sleep around. The safety of the kid depends on the strength of the tribe, and the bond of their parents isn't weakened, since it's acceptable behavior within that society. There's always somebody from both genders to take care of the kid. Even if the marriage fails or somebody dies, there are still the other males and females of the tribe who will take care of him, and treat the kid like every other child. 2 1
Wuzzums Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Kids are best raised with a mother and father present. I base this on the fact that evolution made it so. One parent less is a deficit thus a bad thing, one parent more is a surplus. If the surplus would have given the child an evolutionary advantage then most kids today would have had more than two parents. Another arguments is from genetics. Why would my genes be more or as interested into propagating another person's genes compared to my own? If I had such genes then they would die out in only one generation, thus it's impossible to propagate genes that would enable a person not to care whose is the child in question. Even assuming that such a tribe would exist, what do you think the demographics would be? With that high of a promiscuity rate the number of pregnancies would skyrocket. Let's assume we have 100 people of breeding age, 50 male, 50 female. Each male wants to have sex with each female. How would 100 people be able to give the care and attention to 2500 children in the same manner a "traditional" couple would give to their own child? But there's more. Let's assume that those 100 people can indeed raise those 2500 children. In a generation those 2500 people would create another 1562500 people. Now it's a mathematical resource hell, such a breeding tactic cannot be sustained for long. 1
MMX2010 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The bonobo environment only works for bonobos. Applying bonobo sexual behavior to human beings is silly. Applying Neolithic, hunter-gatherer sexual behavior to modern Americans is silly. 1
jpahmad Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Here ya go: The bonobo environment only works for bonobos. Applying bonobo sexual behavior to human beings is silly. I agree 2
Koroviev Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Kids are best raised with a mother and father present. I base this on the fact that evolution made it so. One parent less is a deficit thus a bad thing, one parent more is a surplus. If the surplus would have given the child an evolutionary advantage then most kids today would have had more than two parents. Another arguments is from genetics. Why would my genes be more or as interested into propagating another person's genes compared to my own? If I had such genes then they would die out in only one generation, thus it's impossible to propagate genes that would enable a person not to care whose is the child in question. Even assuming that such a tribe would exist, what do you think the demographics would be? With that high of a promiscuity rate the number of pregnancies would skyrocket. Let's assume we have 100 people of breeding age, 50 male, 50 female. Each male wants to have sex with each female. How would 100 people be able to give the care and attention to 2500 children in the same manner a "traditional" couple would give to their own child? But there's more. Let's assume that those 100 people can indeed raise those 2500 children. In a generation those 2500 people would create another 1562500 people. Now it's a mathematical resource hell, such a breeding tactic cannot be sustained for long. Not to mention if you don't know who your parents are how do you know who your siblings are. If, as is pointed out above, you have so many people related to you, how do you know if you're sleeping with someone related to you or not? This would undoubtedly lead to way more birth defects. Also, what are the men doing when the women are pregnant, or raising kids. They're most likely out sleeping with other women. This seems like it would lead to women getting the short end of the stick and men having lots of sex with lots of women. What if a disease gets introduced? How would that be stopped if everyone is sleeping together? None of that seems very beneficial for children. I think Stefan did a call in show where this topic, and this specific book came up. I don't remember which one it was though.
J. D. Stembal Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I was raised, for lack of a better word, in a monogamous family. It wasn't the best environment for my well-being, but parents have to trust in their own judgement on the structure and function of a family. If you treat your kids like second class citizens, don't be surprised when they rebel against you and cut you out of their lives later on. I'm not into polyamory, mind, but a lot of insight about the origins of the sexual nature of women can be gleaned from the research cited in that book. I own the book and have read it a couple times. Another resource on human sexuality is The Chemistry Between Us, by Larry Young. 1
Lens Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 What a child needs are few simple things: Love him, Protect him, Care for him and Guide him, Let him express his feelings. Don't ever slap, spank or beat him, Don't ignore or belittle him, Don't interfere with his sexuality, Don't project your own fears, shame and guilt into him, Be honest with him. (him could be her) so if these few things are done by a small family or a collective then the child can grow free and balanced and will treat his kids the same way he was treated. You say that "Kids are raised by the collective tribe. This makes it harder to isolate them.” It is possible but not always the case, some tribes in Tanzania and Kenya continue to practice child abuse under the name of customs and traditions. On the other hand a family/tribe big in numbers can be beneficial because it can have some empathic members who can help the abused child the psychologist Alice Miller calls these people who can offer support to an abused child “Helping Witnesses” I quote a review of one of her books on her site link Miller writes about a "helping witness"—someone who acts (routinely, or even once at a critical time) with kindness toward the child and who somehow, by looking into the child's eyes, shows the child another way to live and be. This helper may have no idea of his or her role but nonetheless acts as a counterweight to the cruelty or neglect a child experiences. DR Miller says that a critical prerequisite for normal survival is that at least once in their lives, mistreated children come into contact with a person who understands that the environment, not the child, is at fault. This helping witness teaches the child that he or she is worthy of kindness. This lesson is the basis for resilience. Dr Miller also describes a "knowing or enlightened witness"—someone who understands the importance of being a helping witness. This person recognizes the adverse effects of childhood trauma or neglect and is willing to give emotional support that helps a child understand and express true feelings. Sadly, the first (and perhaps only) "knowing witness" in most people's lives is often a therapist—but readily could be any physician, nurse, or teacher who is willing to understand what the child sees every day. Another quote of hers on the effect of the absence of the helping witness link If the child has no helping witness to turn to, it will learn to glorify what has been inflicted on it: cruelty, sadism, hypocrisy, and ignorance. The simple reason is that children learn by imitation, not from the well-meant words addressed to them in the later stages of life. The mass murderers, serial killers, Mafia bosses, and dictators who grew up without helping witnesses will inflict, or connive in inflicting, the same terror on whole nations once they have the power to do so. And they will be doing nothing other than putting into practice what they learned by experience when they were small children. 3
Archimedes Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 Kids are best raised with a mother and father present. I base this on the fact that evolution made it so. One parent less is a deficit thus a bad thing, one parent more is a surplus. If the surplus would have given the child an evolutionary advantage then most kids today would have had more than two parents. If monogamy is the result of evolution, why does the state need to create incentives to lure people into marriage? Why all this talk about protecting the family unit, when it is supposedly natural human behavior? Doesn't natural behavior imply, that people do it naturally and don't need external incentives? People in Iran get stoned when they cheat on their spouses, and yet, despite those harsh consequences, infidelity continues to occur. Kids are best raised with a mother and father present. I base this on the fact that evolution made it so. One parent less is a deficit thus a bad thing, one parent more is a surplus. If the surplus would have given the child an evolutionary advantage then most kids today would have had more than two parents. Marriage is a recent thing that was invented by the state. Humans lived in multimale-multifemale-mating societies for most of their history. It's hard do determine if people naturally engage in monogamy, or do it because it was reinforced by religion and state culture. Just because something is, doesn't mean it is bestbecause evolution made it so. One could say that the state is the best tool to organize large social groups, because they do exist today and therefore evolution made it so. You wouldn't buy that argument, would you? Another arguments is from genetics. Why would my genes be more or as interested into propagating another person's genes compared to my own? If I had such genes then they would die out in only one generation, thus it's impossible to propagate genes that would enable a person not to care whose is the child in question. You are applying modern thinking to past behavior. There was no sense of paternity of father back then. Nobody knew who the father was. The competition for reproduction was fought between sperm cells instead of males fighting over females, like we do today. Because man didn't know if it was his kid or not, he helped raised the kid, in case it was his kid. Besides, everyone helped raising kids. Paternity became an issue once agriculture was invented and people started to own property. A man wanted to know if his child was really his, because of inheritance issues. Raising kids also ment having to provide your own property for a kid. That's why men are concerned with paternity. That didn't exist in hunter gatherer tribes and scince everyone helped to raise kids, nobody cared about paternity. Raising kids became much harder and time consuming for the individual with agriculture, because just a few men had the ressources to do so. There wasn't a tribe who helped raising your kid. So you better make sure your kid is really yours, if you put in all the work. It's therefore questionable if men really care about being the father. Because if that's the case why are gangbangs, orgies, and DP so popular genres in porn? If we are naturally monogamous, why watch those clips? Why do men watch those clips, if they want exclusivity from females? Wouldn't the demand for those clips almost non existent, if people were naturally monogamous? Even assuming that such a tribe would exist, what do you think the demographics would be? With that high of a promiscuity rate the number of pregnancies would skyrocket. Let's assume we have 100 people of breeding age, 50 male, 50 female. Each male wants to have sex with each female. How would 100 people be able to give the care and attention to 2500 children in the same manner a "traditional" couple would give to their own child? But there's more. Let's assume that those 100 people can indeed raise those 2500 children. In a generation those 2500 people would create another 1562500 people. Now it's a mathematical resource hell, such a breeding tactic cannot be sustained for long. Your calculation is not based on reality because it ignores that females endure a nine month pregnancy. It's unlikely that a woman is able to have 50 kids. Even if all things line up and a woman is able to have a kid every year, she won't be able to have 50 kids, because hear eggs would dry up. But enough about this theoretical talk. If you look at tribes that engage in multimale-multifemale-mating behaviour you'll see that their population levels are linked to ressource levels in their environment. Jus because they are promiscious doesn't mean they do it like rabbits, consequences be damned. 1 1
Archimedes Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 There's currently one post waiting to be approved which responds to Wuzzums. So I'm going to reply to another user in this one. The bonobo environment only works for bonobos. Applying bonobo sexual behavior to human beings is silly. Applying Neolithic, hunter-gatherer sexual behavior to modern Americans is silly. Why? The relation between Humans, Chimps and Bonobos is closer than those between Indian and African Elefants. We share many behaviors with Bonobos. Here's an excerpt of the book: Table from pp 77-78 Human and bonobo females copulate throughout menstrual cycle, as well as during lactation and pregnancy. Female chimps are sexually active only 25-40 percent of their cycle. Human and bonobo infants develop much more slowly than chimpanzees, beginning to play with others at about 1.5 years, much later than chimps. Like humans, female bonobos return to the group immediately after giving birth and copulate within months. They exhibit little fear of infanticide, which has never been observed in bonobos-captive or free-living. Bonobos and humans enjoy many different copulatory positions, with ventral-ventral (missionary position) appearing to be preferred by bonobo females and rear-entry by males, while chimps prefer rear-entry almost exclusively. Bonobos and humans often gaze into each other's eyes when copulating and kiss each other deeply. Chimps do neither. The vulva is located between the legs and oriented toward the front of the body in humans and bonobos, rather than oriented toward the rear as in chimps and other primates. Food sharing is highly associated with sexual activity in humans and bonobos, only moderately so in chimps. There is a high degree of variability in potential sexual combinations in humans and bonobos; homosexual activity is common in both, but rare in chimps. Genital-genital (G-G) rubbing between female bonobos appears to affirm female bonding, is present in all bonobo populations studied (wild and captive), and is completely absent in chimpanzees. Human data on G-G rubbing are presently unavailable. (Attention: ambitious graduate students!) While sexual activity in chimps and other primates appears to be primarily reproductive, bonobos and humans utilize sexuality for social purposes (tension reduction, bonding, conflict resolution, entertainment, etc.). We also use hunter gatherer tribes to explain other things about human behavior. For example when it comes to nutrition and our desires for sweet food, even though it is maladaptive in our modern world. We just haven't evovled beyond many behavior patterns from hunter gatherer societies. Agriculture just accounts for 5% of the time of human history. It's ignorance to reject the other 95%. 1 1
MMX2010 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Why? The relation between Humans, Chimps and Bonobos is closer than those between Indian and African Elefants. We share many behaviors with Bonobos. And the relation between yourself and every serial killer ever caught is closer than the relation between human beings and bonobos. (See what I did there?) Sorry to be a sarcastic ass, but evolutionary studies must always be mitigated by considerations of the environment - NOT just limited to degrees of genetic relationship. Few, if any, humans live in the bonobo-environment. Few, if any, humans live in the ancestral tribal environment. Different environment = different adaptive sexual behaviors. 3 1
Archimedes Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 Your example about the serial killer is invalid, because serial killers are special outlets of the human species and are not representitive of humans. Besides, we are comparing entire species and not single members. While it's true that different environments lead to different behaviour, it doesn't necessarily lead to differen desires. People have still a desire for sweet unhealthy food, which once was a useful trait but became maladaptive in our modern times. We have to force ourselves to not binge eat chocolate cookies all the time. So yeah, we may behave differently in order to adapt to our modern environment, but it's not like the natural desire for junk food has disappeared. Evolution doesn't work so fast. That's why companies are able to sell tons of unhealthy food today. The same thing applies to our sexual behaviour. We engaged in multimale-multifemale-mating for most of human history. With the invention of agriculture people started to own private property and aquire ressources at a much higher rate. It became important to know if your child is really yours as a man, because you were stuck with raising and protecting your family without the help of a larger tribe. But on the other hand, the gangbang, orgy and double penetration genre is still popular in porn. If we naturally want female exclusivity, and not because the environment forces us to, why do men watch those kind of porn clips? Wouldn't reverse gangbangs be far more popular? 1 1
MMX2010 Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 While it's true that different environments lead to different behaviour, it doesn't necessarily lead to differen desires. Civilization is nothing more than preventing people from giving into their society-damaging desires.
jpahmad Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 The whole Sex At Dawn thing just seems like an ex-post-facto justification for behavior, kind of like circumcision. Human beings have been evolving continually since agriculture. We are not the same specimens that we were 10, 20, 100 thousand years ago. Monogamy evolved well before religion and state power. It evolved for the purpose of advancing the human condition. If it is "unnatural" for us, then why did it take place? What's the point of the book anyway? To point a finger at where we came from? Or to point a finger to where we should go? It's quite obvious that we came from multiple sex partners at some point. It's also quite obvious that we have an adaptive craving for sugar. So? We also we're not that smart and had smaller brains at some point. Does that mean that we should act like degenerates? 3
J. D. Stembal Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Human beings have been evolving continually since agriculture. We are not the same specimens that we were 10, 20, 100 thousand years ago. Monogamy evolved well before religion and state power. It evolved for the purpose of advancing the human condition. If it is "unnatural" for us, then why did it take place? How have humans evolved since agriculture? I am confused as to how that would be possible.
jpahmad Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 How have humans evolved since agriculture? I am confused as to how that would be possible. Let me find the studies and I'll post them up here. Also, Stefan has done quite a few podcast on it as well. Let me see what I can find Check out this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Humans-evolved-fast-after-advent-of-agriculture-3299665.php Here's a discussion between me and Stefan: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2865/iq-costs-and-benefits-saturday-call-in-show-december-13th-2014 2
shirgall Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 How have humans evolved since agriculture? I am confused as to how that would be possible. There is still selection of those who get to breed before they die and which offspring survive to breed again. 2
Snafui Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Sex at Dawn is both right and wrong; that's the problem. While monogamy is far superior for stability in child rearing, the problem is the state has destroyed multi-generational homes via various social programs. It is demonstrable that when family is available (parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.) children have plenty of adults available for being raised. Polyamory comes into play in crisis--a situation where immediate family is not available due to environmental factors. It is clear that polyamorous behavior has occurred historically, and we are equipped for being so both physically and mentally, but this does not mean we should be choosing it as a life style. What is neglected by some is that polyamorous behaviors may be a coping strategy for certain trauma.
Archimedes Posted July 1, 2015 Author Posted July 1, 2015 The whole Sex At Dawn thing just seems like an ex-post-facto justification for behavior, kind of like circumcision. Human beings have been evolving continually since agriculture. We are not the same specimens that we were 10, 20, 100 thousand years ago. Monogamy evolved well before religion and state power. It evolved for the purpose of advancing the human condition. If it is "unnatural" for us, then why did it take place? The evolution towards social monogamy took place out of necessity. Raising kids became much more time consuming and expensive, once property was invented and people stopped shareing everything. Just like forgoing immediate gradification of eating sweets has become a necessity today, even though it feels unnatural in the short term. I think humans evolved to be socially monogamous once agriculture happend, which means couples spend time and ressources to raise offspring, but weren't necessarily sexual exclusive. I think with the amount of cheating going on, it's safe to say that we are not a sexual monogamous species. Being social monogamous is probably just as unnatural for humans as not eating sweets. We intellectually understand that it's the right decision, given our current environment, but it still causes us frustration in the short term. What's the point of the book anyway? To point a finger at where we came from? Or to point a finger to where we should go? It's quite obvious that we came from multiple sex partners at some point. It's also quite obvious that we have an adaptive craving for sugar. So? We also we're not that smart and had smaller brains at some point. Does that mean that we should act like degenerates? I think it's unfair to call multimale-multifemale-mating behavior degenerate. Given that bonobos are highly intelligent, empathic and peaceful, and yet engage in a sexual strategy that our society deems degenerate. I opened this thread because I wanted to discuss if such an environment is better for kids than social monogomy. Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn by Lynn Saxon http://www.amazon.com/dp/1477697284/?tag=freedradio-20 Sex - just what is it all about? Don't other species just get on with it? What are the conflicts and jealousy, pain and disappointments, really all about? The 2010 book SEX AT DAWN tells us that this modern misery is due to our belief in a false evolutionary story about human pair-bonding and nuclear family units. Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá claim that their evidence shows that before 10,000 years ago sexual constraints did not exist, paternity was not an issue, and men and women engaged in fairly free and casual bonobo-like sexual activity. Our ancestors, they argue, not only shared food, they shared sex. Are they right? Using predominantly the same sources, SEX AT DUSK takes another look at that evidence, fills in many gaps, makes many corrections, and reveals something far less candy-coated. Bringing together evolutionary biology, primatology, anthropology, and human sexuality, SEX AT DUSK shows that, rather than revealing important facts about our sexual evolution, Sex at Dawn shrouds it in a fog of misinformation and faulty logic that can only lead us further into the dark. "Human sexuality has always been politicized, prettified, sanitized, romanticized and mythologized. For adults for whom truth is the ultimate turn-on, I recommend Lynn Saxon's insightful treatment of this eternally fascinating subject." - - Steven Pinker, Harvard College Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, and the author of How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate."Cleaning the Augean Stables was one of Hercules's more odious tasks, but also perhaps the most useful. Correcting the errors and misrepresentations of Sex at Dawn has been Lynn Saxon's self-imposed labor, and she does it with Herculean strength. Moreover, Sex at Dusk isn't only well-written and scientifically valid, it is great fun as well! This particular transition from Dawn to Dusk is not only natural, but much needed." - - David P. Barash, Professor of Psychology, University of Washington Interesting. I'm definitly going to check this out. I've spent some time researching about the book and apparently S@D cherry picked data to push an agenda. On the other hand there are accusation about misogyny about the book. Have you read it and can talk about those two things? 1 1
Lens Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 It is not invalid, it is invalid to you because of your defences but this information is quite accepted and well known on FDR see "The Bomb in The Brain Series” 6 Videos I’ll link below in case you or any other person wants to know some basic and scientific facts about the roots of violence in childhood. Link: http://fdrurl.com/bib About the chocolate binging it is called self-medicating and it is also because of child abuse you can read books by Gabor Maté or listen to the interview he gave Stefan not long ago. Clearly it is not an adaptation to the so called "modern society" but an adaptation to physical and sexual abuse endured in childhood at the hands of their parents. You choose on which side you want to be on the children's side or on their abusive parent's side and their propaganda repeated everywhere on TV and in media. If you do not know these well known facts you should investigate them and read about them. By now there are more than 3000 podcasts which you can listened to in many of them Stefan Molyneux repeats to listeners these facts some listeners open up others close like a clam and unfortunately they also lose the opportunity of richer and more emotional life. I would not recommend a better tribe than this one. Concerning serial killers they actually deny they had a bad childhood themselves and society helps them in doing so by not being curious of their childhood history so parents and religions can maintain their purity. One famous serial killer Joseph Fritzl when interviewed he said he had the best mother. Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia Joseph Fritzl a famous case in serial killing this is what he said: Reflecting on his childhood, Fritzl initially described his mother as "the best woman in the world" and "as strict as it was necessary”. Later, he expressed a negative opinion of his mother and claimed that "she used to beat me, hit me until I was lying in a pool of blood on the floor. It left me feeling totally humiliated and weak. My mother was a servant and she used to work hard all her life, I never had a kiss from her, I was never cuddled although I wanted it - I wanted her to be good to me.” Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case Another story about Whitney Post the prostitute killer, who killed his victims by cutting their feet and other parts of their body this is an account of his childhood from the book Base Instincts: What Makes Killers Kill? by Jonathan H. Pincus When reading further in the book you find this Whitney's interest in feet beyond his being beaten on his legs and feet by both his parents. He told me that it was his job to massage his mother's feet. I asked him to describe these sessions. He said that she would lie on her stomach in her bedroom, wearing only a slip, and ask him to rub her feet. He hated doing it and tried to do it for as short a time as possible, but she would request a more prolonged massage. She would moan and gasp softly as he rubbed her feet and he felt very uncomfortable massaging them, thinking it was more of her husband's role. He could not decline to participate as this would have been 'back talk' and punishable by beating. Thus, he was helplessly drawn into a very sexually charged, incestuous situation. Whitney told me how he masturbated with prostitutes' feet. They were naked and would lie on their stomachs across his front seat or kneel on the front seat facing the back of his vehicle. He would straddle them with his back toward their head and would place his penis between their feet.I told him that I thought there might have been a great deal of sexual abuse in his family that he might not have told me about because he did not remember it. … He said that he, literally, would rather die than let others know the details of what was done to him by his parents. 1
jpahmad Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 . I think with the amount of cheating going on, it's safe to say that we are not a sexual monogamous species. What a human being is changes with time. One again, we are not the same as we were 10,000 years ago. I posted a couple links concerning human evolution but it was moderated and I don't know when you're going to see it. Human nature is not fixed. It changes as women select who to mate with. Certain genes are weeded out over time and others are promoted to the next generation. The affinity for pair bonding, monogamy, sexual-self control, love, jealously, etc.. are all attributes that have been selected for.
Mister Mister Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Another thing about monogamy that's occurred to me, is that it allows, for better or for worse, for more individuation of culture within families than a tribal situation. If you want to raise your children with values which are contrary to those of the families around you, it is nearly impossible in a tribal setting, but more possible as a nuclear family if you and your spouse are on the same page. However, as someone pointed out, this isolation can also create the grounds for abuse and neglect.
MMX2010 Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 How have humans evolved since agriculture? I am confused as to how that would be possible. They evolve through their respective cultures. Evolution = Genetic Change + Environmental Change. It doesn't only mean Genetic Change.
J. D. Stembal Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 They evolve through their respective cultures. Evolution = Genetic Change + Environmental Change. It doesn't only mean Genetic Change. The point is that we need to be very careful about definitions, especially when you are using a word such as evolution in manner which is inconsistent with the most common scientific context. Everyone in this thread has projected their own meaning onto the word in response to objecting with some of the content in the OP, specifically the criticism of monogamy which is a reoccurring theme in the book. If you have read the book, you would see that there are also larger criticisms of statism and religion contained within the pages. Evolution n. noun 1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth
jpahmad Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 My two posts disappeared. Here is a link about the evolution of man since agriculture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion I think with the amount of cheating going on, it's safe to say that we are not a sexual monogamous species. Being social monogamous is probably just as unnatural for humans as not eating sweets. We intellectually understand that it's the right decision, given our current environment, but it still causes us frustration in the short term. Causes frustration? Who's frustrated? The evolution towards social monogamy took place out of necessity. Raising kids became much more time consuming and expensive, once property was invented and people stopped shareing everything. I opened this thread because I wanted to discuss if such an environment is better for kids than social monogomy. Didn't you answer your question about what environment is best for kids with the first statement above?
Matt D Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 The girl I'm dating is interested in polyamory. It's been a real struggle for me because I've always assumed the nuclear two-parent family is best for adults and for children but I don't honestly have the arguments or data to back up that claim with certainty. Her basic premise is that religion and government are impositions by society on individual freedoms and monogamy is the same thing. Besides the fact that both of us would be jealous if the other person wanted another sexual partner is there a moral, rational, or philosophical case against open, consensual polyamory? I've ordered a copy of 'Sex at Dawn' after which I plan to read 'Sex at Dusk'.
AncapFTW Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Monogamy seems a bit possessive to me, as you are restricting the other person's activities based on your own preference. Sure, both of you generally agree to this, but with so many people cheating, are you sure that both people are happy with the agreement? Also, it's usually very hard to get out of the agreement, and even suggesting a change to the agreement is emotionally hurtful to some people. The same goes for children. Many people say "it's my kid. How dare you tell me how to raise them!". In both of these situations, I wonder if people are considering the other person an equal, or as a possession. True, the child's knowledge and mental development most likely aren't equal or greater than yours, but does that really matter?
jpahmad Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 The girl I'm dating is interested in polyamory. Alarm bells! 5
J. D. Stembal Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 The girl I'm dating is interested in polyamory. It's been a real struggle for me because I've always assumed the nuclear two-parent family is best for adults and for children but I don't honestly have the arguments or data to back up that claim with certainty. Her basic premise is that religion and government are impositions by society on individual freedoms and monogamy is the same thing. Besides the fact that both of us would be jealous if the other person wanted another sexual partner is there a moral, rational, or philosophical case against open, consensual polyamory? I've ordered a copy of 'Sex at Dawn' after which I plan to read 'Sex at Dusk'. I would be very wary, Matt. Did she bring up "swinging" or did you? I read an entire book on the subject of living poly before I decided I could not stomach the man-hating feminist undertones of the poly community. In the poly party scene, it is often not allowed for men to show up unescorted by a woman or they are penalized for doing so. In one particular place in Denver, where orgy pool parties take place, if a man shows up stag, he must pay the price of a hotel room as a fee. The upshot of all this is if you are a single man, you basically aren't welcome to participate because you are probably a creeper. The very notion that a woman has to vouch for you in order for you to attend is a clear indication of the power of the matriarchy that has persisted since the dawn of our species.
Archimedes Posted July 3, 2015 Author Posted July 3, 2015 Causes frustration? Who's frustrated? If you have the desire to eat sweets, but don't act upon it because you intellectually value your health over short-term gradification, you will still have a negative experience of not satisfying your urge to eat sweets. Didn't you answer your question about what environment is best for kids with the first statement above? No, I was talking about why adults started to pursue a socially mongamous strategy. It was economically driven, because males wanted to know if they really were the father when raising and protecting a family became more expensive. What a human being is changes with time. One again, we are not the same as we were 10,000 years ago. I posted a couple links concerning human evolution but it was moderated and I don't know when you're going to see it. Human nature is not fixed. It changes as women select who to mate with. Certain genes are weeded out over time and others are promoted to the next generation. The affinity for pair bonding, monogamy, sexual-self control, love, jealously, etc.. are all attributes that have been selected for. If that's the case then why are dark triad personalities so good at attracting women? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad#As_mating_strategy Why do nice guys have such a hard time? Why are there so few women interested in philosophy and virtue?
jpahmad Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 If you have the desire to eat sweets, but don't act upon it because you intellectually value your health over short-term gradification, you will still have a negative experience of not satisfying your urge to eat sweets. I don't see how delay of gratification is a negative experience. Certainly not frustrating. It's a skill. Some people don't have any craving for sweets. Habits make cravings. Anyway, I don't know any healthy long-term monogamous couples that are living in a state of frustration for the duration of their lives. No, I was talking about why adults started to pursue a socially mongamous strategy. It was economically driven, because males wanted to know if they really were the father when raising and protecting a family became more expensive. All biological evolution is economically driven. If that's the case then why are dark triad personalities so good at attracting women? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad#As_mating_strategy Why do nice guys have such a hard time? Why are there so few women interested in philosophy and virtue? Well, for one thing, Stefan has dedicated a large portion of his show to why woman are attracted to these types. I'm not sure what "dark triad personalities" has to do with bonobos though
Koroviev Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Don't bonobos live in alpha-male packs, where there is a single male with a lots of females and their offspring? Also, everything I've read seem to say that the bonobos become more sexually active in captivity than they are in the wild. It does still show up in the wild but they are spending more of their time gathering resources than they are in captivity. Bonobo sex usually isn't for mating as well instead it seems to be used more as communication, tension relief, bonding, oh and of course greeting, and payment, and usually it does not lead to orgasm. It seems to me that polyamory is mostly advantageous when women feel like they cannot rely on men. Either because men could/do die at any second, due to war, hunting accidents, etc., or because men simply aren't reliable, usually, because they are too busy sleeping with other women. For humans, sex carries with it a lot of emotions, which it does not seem to for bonobos, and although some people are good at hiding those emotions, or seem to become numb to them, I don't think those emotions can or will go away. Also, I still don't see how any of this is best for raising children. All of the arguments to this point seem to be more that it is better for children than being raised by crappy monogamous couples, or it would be better for the parents because the responsibility would be shared. No one has shown how it is better or could be better than being raised by peaceful, monogamous, parents. If it is not better than peaceful, monogamous, parents then shouldn't we be spending our time on that rather than rationalizing a less optimal solution? Unless we're planning an FDR sex party (and even then, no offense ) I don't know enough people who want to raise children the way I do to even consider polyamory. Also don't you get those same "tribe" benefits in a good community without sleeping with everyone? 1
Matt D Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 I would be very wary, Matt. Did she bring up "swinging" or did you? I read an entire book on the subject of living poly before I decided I could not stomach the man-hating feminist undertones of the poly community. In the poly party scene, it is often not allowed for men to show up unescorted by a woman or they are penalized for doing so. In one particular place in Denver, where orgy pool parties take place, if a man shows up stag, he must pay the price of a hotel room as a fee. The upshot of all this is if you are a single man, you basically aren't welcome to participate because you are probably a creeper. The very notion that a woman has to vouch for you in order for you to attend is a clear indication of the power of the matriarchy that has persisted since the dawn of our species. JD, I appreciate your concern. I would probably say the same thing to someone in my position. I'm aware that these poly parties exist. I can confidently say my girlfriend wouldn't be found within ten miles of one. She also isn't a feminist and eschews labels on the whole. I'm not defending the behaviors of most polyamorists because there are a lot of things I don't approve of... but that itself doesn't mean responsible polyamory couldn't work. Unless we're planning an FDR sex party (and even then, no offense ) I don't know enough people who want to raise children the way I do to even consider polyamory. Also don't you get those same "tribe" benefits in a good community without sleeping with everyone? This is something I have been thinking about a lot. (No, not the FDR sex party) ...Which is that the only way I could ever possibly approve of polyamory is if the third wheel is just as into self knowledge and peaceful parenting as my partner and I are. Obviously finding one partner who meets these criteria is hard enough, let alone multiple partners. But if the third wheel was my best friend, someone I loved and cherished and trusted enough to help in the raising of my child and I of his, would it not only strength the relationship between my partner and I? And would the love that my child experienced be diminished by having three parents instead of two? 1
PatrickC Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 My only issues with polyamory, is that it takes a lot of time to build trust and rapport and keep it with another person you're having children with. There just aren't enough hours in the week to share and keep that connection going with more than one person. You end up sacrificing some of that connection I think. Also I'll be honest, there is no way I could share my partner sexually with another man. It just feels primal and instinctive for me to feel that way. 2
Archimedes Posted July 3, 2015 Author Posted July 3, 2015 I don't see how delay of gratification is a negative experience. Certainly not frustrating. It's a skill. Some people don't have any craving for sweets. Habits make cravings. Anyway, I don't know any healthy long-term monogamous couples that are living in a state of frustration for the duration of their lives. At this point, we are just arguing semantics. Delaying gradification means that you delay something that gives you pleasure in the moment in order to gain a reward in the long term. If you continually delay your shor-term gradifications, they will loose their intensity. But that's what I'm not talking about. I'm talking about experiencing an urge and deciding not to engage in it, because it violates your values. There will be a short term negative experience, otherwise it wouldn't be an urge, and there will be long term positive experience, otherwise your values wouldn't feel important to you. I guess not many people in monogamous people are going to tell you about their experience of seeing another attractive person and turning them down, because they value their current relationship over short term flings. Going against that initial attraction causes a negative experience in the short term, otherwise you wouldn't be attracted to the person in the first person. If your relationship is strong, you will probably not be frustrated by that experience and feel a stronger bond with your partner. All biological evolution is economically driven. So do you agree that I didn't answer myself by saying this adaption was because of economic reasons. Not every economic decision taken by the parents results in a healthier environment for the child. Well, for one thing, Stefan has dedicated a large portion of his show to why woman are attracted to these types. I'm not sure what "dark triad personalities" has to do with bonobos though You weren't talking about bonobos. You talked how humans went through a change 10000 years ago and that women mate choices changed and things like traits like pair-bonding, monogamy, sexual self-control, etc. have been selected for. I showed you that many women are still attracted to those guys, who are displaying opposite traits. Studies have shown that women are attracted to different types of men depending on ther menstrual cycle. It's during ovulation, when they are most attracted to hot looking guys, while they prefer nurturing men during the rest of the time. It's not so obvious that women select for the traits that you have mentioned. It makes more sense that they are pursuing a cuckholding strategy. Of course, not all women are like that and there are the rare virtuous women, but Stef himself said they are incredible rare. Don't bonobos live in alpha-male packs, where there is a single male with a lots of females and their offspring? Also, everything I've read seem to say that the bonobos become more sexually active in captivity than they are in the wild. It does still show up in the wild but they are spending more of their time gathering resources than they are in captivity. Bonobo sex usually isn't for mating as well instead it seems to be used more as communication, tension relief, bonding, oh and of course greeting, and payment, and usually it does not lead to orgasm. You got most things right, except that there are no alphas among bonobos. The females are in charge and they are promiscuous. They usually try to sleep with any male available. I don't know if their sex drive increases in captivity, but it's alreay pretty high in the wild. It seems to me that polyamory is mostly advantageous when women feel like they cannot rely on men. Either because men could/do die at any second, due to war, hunting accidents, etc., or because men simply aren't reliable, usually, because they are too busy sleeping with other women. For humans, sex carries with it a lot of emotions, which it does not seem to for bonobos, and although some people are good at hiding those emotions, or seem to become numb to them, I don't think those emotions can or will go away. I think sex is as emotionally for bonobos as it is for humans. We share many of our positive traits with them. For example, empathy, intelligence, caring, nurturig, cooperation, etc. If bonobos wouldn't experience emotions during sex, how could they use it as a means for bonding and conflict resolution? Bonobos are also pretty reliable. They are pretty peaceful, there has never been an instance of male to male killing. Bonobos live a pretty secure life. There's no predator hunting them. So I don't think their promiscurity is caused by the things you mention. Also, I still don't see how any of this is best for raising children. All of the arguments to this point seem to be more that it is better for children than being raised by crappy monogamous couples, or it would be better for the parents because the responsibility would be shared. No one has shown how it is better or could be better than being raised by peaceful, monogamous, parents. If it is not better than peaceful, monogamous, parents then shouldn't we be spending our time on that rather than rationalizing a less optimal solution? Unless we're planning an FDR sex party (and even then, no offense ) I don't know enough people who want to raise children the way I do to even consider polyamory. Also don't you get those same "tribe" benefits in a good community without sleeping with everyone? In the book there is an anecdote by a man raised in a household with two female and two male adults as parents. There were six kids and he said that all adults helped raising and shaping him to be the person he is today. Why would it be a problem when the four adults have self-knowledge?
Koroviev Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 You got most things right, except that there are no alphas among bonobos. The females are in charge and they are promiscuous. They usually try to sleep with any male available. I don't know if their sex drive increases in captivity, but it's alreay pretty high in the wild. I think sex is as emotionally for bonobos as it is for humans. We share many of our positive traits with them. For example, empathy, intelligence, caring, nurturig, cooperation, etc. If bonobos wouldn't experience emotions during sex, how could they use it as a means for bonding and conflict resolution? Bonobos are also pretty reliable. They are pretty peaceful, there has never been an instance of male to male killing. Bonobos live a pretty secure life. There's no predator hunting them. So I don't think their promiscurity is caused by the things you mention. In the book there is an anecdote by a men raised in a household with two female and two male adults as parents. There were six kids and he said that all adults helped raising and shaping him to be the person he is today. Why would it be a problem when the four adults have self-knowledge? I definitely can't claim to be an expert on bonobos, but everything I've read (although limited) has said they are alpha male troops. That doesn't mean that males are in charge in fact most of the alpha males'...alpha-ness(??) comes from it's mother backing it up, however they are still considered to be an "alpha-male" society. You say that sex carries the same emotional value for bonobos as it does for humans, but how could something that is equivalent to a hand shake or a dollar bill be as emotional as sex is for humans? Bonobos do have predators. Although not many, assuming you aren't counting humans, saying there's no predator hunting them is false. http://a-z-animals.com/animals/bonobo/ http://www.allaboutwildlife.com/chimpanzee-enemies Most if not all of the parental responsibility falls to the female bonobos since the males cannot tell who is the father. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo Also, it's not only polyamory, it's everyone having sex with everyone. The only exception is, sometimes, mother bonobos with their adult sons. My point is how do we know that the reason for their relative "peacefulness" (note relative is compared to other apes this does not mean they are entirely peaceful and even this fact is highly debated) isn't the fact that their all having sex with their children? Finally, I did not say that poly amorous relationships could not work. The original question was "is monogamy really the best way to raise kids." This would imply one would have to compare the best case scenario of monogamy to the alternative. Thus far this has not been done. Not to mention all of the benefits that have been mentioned for polyamory can be gained without everyone sleeping together. In order to say monogamy is not the best thing for children something must be better than the best of monogamy. All of the parenting issues brought up with monogamy could (and I'm sure do) show up in polyamory so how is this solving the issues?
Recommended Posts