Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Want to go Primal? Drop the wife or husband (Rule #11)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I just want to point out that isn't Mark from MARKS DAILY APPLE. The guy who created this website, who soaks up everything 'Grok' like it was crack in a LONG term marriage....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Davidil View Post
      "Serial monogamy" is euphemism. If I change partners every week, am I a serial monogamist? Its a bullshit gray zone.

      It's just a euphemism used to conceal our NON monogamous nature. If we were monogamous we'd mate for life, like pigeons.
      It is a gray zone but I don't think it's bullshit. It is a compromise that I make with modern day reality.

      Modern day reality is different than a nice friendly tribe where everyone knew everybody and they hadn't invented AIDS yet. Modern reality for a female to go out and be sowing wild oats is a bit dangerous. There are creepy people and creepy diseases out there.

      If you find a good one you can trust, both get tested, then you can dispense with the latex which makes everything nicer. You just don't have to pledge your troth til death. If things are not working out well and the feeling is gone, you both move on with no recriminations.

      This is the compromise that I have found works for me in the world we live in.

      Comment


      • Personally, I find that much of being 'primal' in the way Mark describes it is having happiness and peace-of-mind. I am far happier in a committed relationship with a person I truely care about than I am chasing tail.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Davidil View Post
          "Serial monogamy" is euphemism. If I change partners every week, am I a serial monogamist? Its a bullshit gray zone.

          It's just a euphemism used to conceal our NON monogamous nature. If we were monogamous we'd mate for life, like pigeons.
          Being naturally monogamous, I'd have to disagree that humans are universally non-monogamous. I have never been sexually attracted to anyone I knew personally (yes, certain actors looked "hot" when I was a teen, but meeting people who were attractive in photographs usually put me off them, so I'd guess it would have still been the same for famous folks). It wasn't like I hadn't met many people (I've lived in seven different cities and 19 different houses across the UK and Spain) or I hadn't met attractive people. I just wasn't interested. I never went through the peer-pressure based "initiation" most people do and subsequently never developed a desire for a sexual relationship with another human.
          I met my fiance online and formed an emotional bond with him, so we started dating even before we'd met in person. After that I found myself sexually attracted to him. When we met face-to-face he smelled amazing, something I'd never noticed in another human. And obviously we eventually had sex. After a few years of the "normal couple stuff" we're engaged. I don't think I could engage in sex with any other human in my life.

          I think the problem is that, when you have sex for the first time outside an emotional relationship (which wouldn't have happened in a tribal scenario, where one-night-stands would be impossible, as you knew everyone), you associate it with personal pleasure and not human interaction. And, when you have sex for the first time with someone you're bonded to, the oxytocin release will encourage you to stay with them. If that relationship fails, it then weakens the impact of subsequent sexually-released oxytocin, the same way exposure to porn, sugar or drugs numbs your reception of them. This means that when you start a relationship immaturely and have sex inside that relationship (be it a one-night-stand or a teenage relationship formed due to weak social bonding), you're "defusing" your natural potential for monogamy. This probably serves a purpose, otherwise we would have lost it. But it doesn't change the fact that humans (and females especially) have natural potential to be monogamous
          Last edited by Kochin; 06-24-2013, 11:27 AM.
          --
          Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

          --
          I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
          I'd apologize, but...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kochin View Post
            I think the problem is that, when you have sex for the first time outside an emotional relationship (which wouldn't have happened in a tribal scenario, where one-night-stands would be impossible, as you knew everyone), you associate it with personal pleasure and not human interaction.
            This makes the assumption that one night stands would have been frowned upon. Why would they?

            /@Kochin

            I think there is a piece to the puzzle missing in this whole discussion. It has been stated that women want monogamy so that a man will stick around and protect her and her children. It has been stated that a man wants monogamy because he doesn't want to get stuck raising someone else's child.

            But both of these statements rely on the premise that early humans understood that sex==>>babies. I don't think this is necessarily so.

            Given that women often have sex without having a baby (especially when BF% is low) and that conception and figuring out that a child is on the way are rather far apart in time, I don't think this connection was really apparent.

            People have sex. Women have babies. Two separate subjects. When women have babies, the tribe raises them and life goes on.

            All our morality and social mores are rooted in the fact that we know sex could mean a baby. Caring whose baby it is only becomes an issue when there is property to be handed down, in other words, it is an economic concept.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
              This makes the assumption that one night stands would have been frowned upon. Why would they?

              /@Kochin

              I think there is a piece to the puzzle missing in this whole discussion. It has been stated that women want monogamy so that a man will stick around and protect her and her children. It has been stated that a man wants monogamy because he doesn't want to get stuck raising someone else's child.

              But both of these statements rely on the premise that early humans understood that sex==>>babies. I don't think this is necessarily so.

              Given that women often have sex without having a baby (especially when BF% is low) and that conception and figuring out that a child is on the way are rather far apart in time, I don't think this connection was really apparent.

              People have sex. Women have babies. Two separate subjects. When women have babies, the tribe raises them and life goes on.

              All our morality and social mores are rooted in the fact that we know sex could mean a baby. Caring whose baby it is only becomes an issue when there is property to be handed down, in other words, it is an economic concept.
              winnar
              Optimum Health powered by Actualized Self-Knowledge.

              Predator not Prey
              Paleo Ketogenic Lifestyle

              CW 315 | SW 506
              Current Jeans 46 | Starting Jeans 66


              Contact me: quelsen@gmail.com

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=Paleobird;1232986]This makes the assumption that one night stands would have been frowned upon. Why would they?

                No, I meant it more in the sense that a "one night stand" isn't really a "one night stand" if you know the person. Modern one night stands rely on two unknown people meeting up for nothing but reckless pleasure. From what people who have dated long-term friends have told me, the dynamic is very different when you know someone. Less selfish, no guarantee/assumption it will not continue, no misconceptions about the other (hopefully). Basically, most humans being concerned about others' emotions and the social dynamics of their "tribe" (family or group), we wouldn't place as little value on the other person as is done in a one night stand.
                --
                Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

                --
                I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
                I'd apologize, but...

                Comment


                • I think it was important to keep track of relationships in order to avoid incest long before inheritance of property became important.
                  As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again.

                  Comment


                  • @Paleobird:
                    Also, it depends on how far back in human history we go for monogamy/lack of monogamy. If you go back far enough, hominids aren't aware sex leads to babies. But only two extant groups of humans (Aboriginal Australians and a tribe on an island in the Pacific, if I recall correctly) don't understand that sex causes babies. And the Aboriginals know sex creates a physical baby, they just attribute fatherhood to spiritual bonds, not physical ones, so you could even say that example doesn't count. So one tribe in the world that doesn't understand the link.
                    Why doesn't that tribe understand the link? It's not a more "primitive" pattern: they overrationalized. They had sex so freely and from such a young age that babies couldn't be attributed to it. So they decided babies were the spirits of ancestors come back to life in the womb. Consequences of this misunderstanding? Pedophilia and incest.

                    Basically, the only tribe that doesn't understand sex leads to babies regularly engages in incestuous and pedophilic sex, which we all know to be counter-instinctive and dangerous to genetic progression in humans.

                    There is no evidence Homo Sapiens Sapiens as a specie was ever truly unaware of the way procreation worked. Maybe former hominids, but not us.
                    --
                    Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

                    --
                    I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
                    I'd apologize, but...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jennifla View Post
                      I think it was important to keep track of relationships in order to avoid incest long before inheritance of property became important.
                      The idea that incest directly results in birth defects and congenital diseases is way overrated. Unless there is a genetic defect in the family, there will probably be no impact on the health of the offspring. Even if something does run in a family, it will only likely have the probability increase somewhat. Primitive people had no idea of how genetics and inbreeding worked. If half of family members died from an illness, they probably were more likely to think of evil spirits than DNA.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Davidil View Post
                        . Our sexual impulses are perhaps the strongest that we have. So if you live sexually "unnaturally" - you can expect the consequences to be dire.
                        Except that the only person determining what is "natural" is you, based on supposition about ancient peoples that's basically not easily supported by evidence.

                        I'm looking at a far more liberal approach. That approach is that each individual can determine for him/her self what is the most appropriate, healthy way to live out their sexual impulses and desires.

                        My n=1 demonstrates that monogamy is awesome, and my husband feels the same way (he might also be a "beta" but I don't know). Has our marriage always been awesome? The answer is actually no. We had a real rough patch after the birth of our son for two reasons: 1. DH was having major health issues; and 2. both DH and I hit a massive wall in our dynamics/psychology that neither of us was aware of.

                        Once DH started working on 1 in earnest, and both DH and I started working on 2 (individually and together), not only did our relationship get back to it's previous "this is awesome" but it has gotten even better than it was before we had our son! We are both incredibly happy with that relationship.

                        Truthfully, I understand that some people don't believe this sort of N-1. They don't believe whatever science supports it (not that I care. I really only care about the n-1).

                        I'm ok with this. I don't need other people to choose my way. I just don't like that people criticize my way because they don't want to do it.

                        And FWIW, I only criticize things that don't involve consent (rape, pedophilia, etc). As long as you have consenting adults, I say do what you want -- not because it's "waht's natural" or "what's right" but simply because it's what you want.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
                          and we've been happily married and monogamous for almost 15 years now, together over 16. Or sex life is still really good, and not "boring" at all. We still laugh and have fun and don't fight about anything really... I don't think occasionally disagreeing about things count as there is no tension or argument about that. We have pretty much the lowest stress relationship you can imagine even though we've been through some very tough things together. We are simply very happy not having sex with, or seeking sex from, other people. At a certain point in life it feels good to share love AND sex AND history AND the future. Maybe that's what makes us so happy.
                          I think the history thing is a huge part of it. I mean, the emotional intimacy that DH and I share is really special. It's part of the fun of what we do. And in a lot of ways, our relationship feels very "new" and "fresh." I don't know how to describe it, but I often feel the same feelings that i felt when we were first dating -- all of that excitement to see each other, fun, etc. I don't know how to explain that either.

                          It shocks both of us that it's been 17 years that we've been together.

                          Comment


                          • OMG yes.

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=Kochin;1233021]
                              Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                              This makes the assumption that one night stands would have been frowned upon. Why would they?

                              No, I meant it more in the sense that a "one night stand" isn't really a "one night stand" if you know the person. Modern one night stands rely on two unknown people meeting up for nothing but reckless pleasure. From what people who have dated long-term friends have told me, the dynamic is very different when you know someone. Less selfish, no guarantee/assumption it will not continue, no misconceptions about the other (hopefully). Basically, most humans being concerned about others' emotions and the social dynamics of their "tribe" (family or group), we wouldn't place as little value on the other person as is done in a one night stand.
                              Ah, I see what you mean. This is why I don't do one night stands in the modern world. Not up for taking some guy whose name I'm not sure of home from a bar. I think things would have been friendlier in a small band of early humans. A one night stand might turn into multiple nights or not but we are all still a tribe.

                              Originally posted by Jennifla View Post
                              I think it was important to keep track of relationships in order to avoid incest long before inheritance of property became important.
                              Still assumes people understand that sex leads to babies.

                              Originally posted by Kochin View Post
                              @Paleobird:
                              Also, it depends on how far back in human history we go for monogamy/lack of monogamy. If you go back far enough, hominids aren't aware sex leads to babies. But only two extant groups of humans (Aboriginal Australians and a tribe on an island in the Pacific, if I recall correctly) don't understand that sex causes babies. And the Aboriginals know sex creates a physical baby, they just attribute fatherhood to spiritual bonds, not physical ones, so you could even say that example doesn't count. So one tribe in the world that doesn't understand the link.
                              Why doesn't that tribe understand the link? It's not a more "primitive" pattern: they overrationalized. They had sex so freely and from such a young age that babies couldn't be attributed to it. So they decided babies were the spirits of ancestors come back to life in the womb. Consequences of this misunderstanding? Pedophilia and incest.

                              Basically, the only tribe that doesn't understand sex leads to babies regularly engages in incestuous and pedophilic sex, which we all know to be counter-instinctive and dangerous to genetic progression in humans.

                              There is no evidence Homo Sapiens Sapiens as a specie was ever truly unaware of the way procreation worked. Maybe former hominids, but not us.
                              Anyone we can or have studied does not really count as paleolithic. I really don't see where you get the idea that not understanding the link between sex and babies leads to pedophilia.

                              Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
                              The idea that incest directly results in birth defects and congenital diseases is way overrated. Unless there is a genetic defect in the family, there will probably be no impact on the health of the offspring. Even if something does run in a family, it will only likely have the probability increase somewhat. Primitive people had no idea of how genetics and inbreeding worked. If half of family members died from an illness, they probably were more likely to think of evil spirits than DNA.
                              This is true. And if there is a defect, it would get weeded out and not be passed on.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by zoebird View Post
                                I think the history thing is a huge part of it. I mean, the emotional intimacy that DH and I share is really special. It's part of the fun of what we do. And in a lot of ways, our relationship feels very "new" and "fresh." I don't know how to describe it, but I often feel the same feelings that i felt when we were first dating -- all of that excitement to see each other, fun, etc. I don't know how to explain that either.

                                It shocks both of us that it's been 17 years that we've been together.
                                All of that.

                                I still get butterflies when we kiss.
                                We are the goofy couple that says the same thing at the same time.
                                But we aren't gross "all over each other" or anything too sappy. No PDA.
                                We are basically best friends and lovers. It's pretty special I think.

                                I would be totally and completely miserable if I had to give this up to go back to hooking up with people.
                                Seriously.
                                I have no idea who would make that choice given our relationship.
                                Though I do understand why someone would choose getting out and hooking up over a crappy angry tension filled relationship.
                                Been there, done that! LOL
                                “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
                                ~Friedrich Nietzsche
                                And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X