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

  • Originally posted by Kochin View Post
    You assume marriage and a nuclear family is necessary for sexual monogamy. Many societies throughout the world engage in lifelong partnership without a need for a ceremony or a ring. They just choose someone and settle. And yes, sometimes people in a monogamous society experiment and wind up engaging in polygamy, or a relationship ends due to death, banishment or ill health and the remaining party eventually moves on. Much in the same way that in a polygamous society not everyone engages in the "socially correct" behaviours of said society and some wind up monogamous. Some people DO naturally lean steadily one way or the other, but, in general, humans are flexible because we need to be. Because we sit between monogamy and polygamy dependent on what is preferable to that particular society.
    Originally posted by Kochin View Post
    Yet many people are also naturally monogamous and anyone raised in a monogamous society is far more likely to stay monogamous and be happy. Arranged marriages and marriage and wealth messed that up a bit. Naturally, in a monogamous society, you would select a mate of your own choosing, meaning the relationship was likely to last, as you'd find them sexually appealing, pleasant to be around and generally a good addition to your family. When you add wealth or religion, people start selecting mates they aren't actually compatible with, making the relationship less likely to work.
    As a monogamous society becomes wealthier, it is far more likely to turn into a polygamous society due to the increased demand for wealth and separation, eventually leading to monogamy appearing unnecessary (which it would be when the population have become polygamous).
    Our general disagreement seems to center around the frequency of monogamy in other cultures than our own. What can you site that shows monogamy in these other cultures? These cultures must be far removed from our own for them to count.

    My readings have all basically pointed towards polyamory in most/all cultures pre-agriculture and even a lot of cultures post-agriculture.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
      Somehow it seems like you are looking at this from a modernist point of view. The idea that everybody has the right to procreate and make that decision independently of the proposed other half of the genetic material of some potential offspring is weird.

      Historically, people had no right to expect to procreate. It was not uncommon for a couple to be infertile, and it was neither the man's nor the woman's prerogative to go out and find other partners to try to make it happen (except in the case of the need for royal heirs). Although it was generally assumed that the woman was the infertile member of the couple, in all likelihood it was as often the man with the fertility issue.

      Until very recently people just accepted that they weren't intended to have kids. You read lots of old stories of childless couples growing old together. You don't read stories about men and women abandoning marriages to try to spawn elsewhere. The idea of high technology producing extraordinary solutions to infertility that people should expect to be provided until their insurance company pulled the plug on funding was just not a concept.
      Who cares if my perspective is modernist? Is fertility not a valid problem with modern couples?

      You're assuming that post was answering "why polyamory has always existed". Instead it answered "why monogamy fails". Other people have covered "why polyamory has always existed" (although I'm allowing Kochin to prove me wrong on this point), and "why polyamory succeeds".

      Argument shell of "In favor of polyamory":
      1. "Why polyamory has always existed rather than monogamy". Supporting evidence: witnessing polyamorous societies, witnessing human behaviour even in our monogamous society, human anatomy (covered well by "Sex At Dawn")
      2. "Why polyamory suceeds"
      3. "Why monogamy fails"
      Last edited by wiltondeportes; 06-26-2013, 03:12 PM.

      Comment


      • I didn't realize the thread topic had changed.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
          I didn't realize the thread topic had changed.
          You have to understand the differences in each talking point to know what is relevant. Go back to my "shell" to get the picture.

          Comment


          • No, thanks. You may stay in your shell.

            Comment


            • I think she's overestimating the emotional component of tribal relationships. The deep emotional connection is a romantic concept that occurred simultaneously sometimes but not prior to having sex in the tribal context.
              I think that you are under-estimating the emotional connection of tribal life. How can you not feel emotions if you live around someone and your economic/survival activity is interconnected? You are all up in their business, you hear everyone fucking, you see all of the nonverbal communication all day, etc etc. Have you ever like, gone to camp? Or lived in a student residence or something?
              "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

              Jack london, "Before Adam"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
                No, thanks. You may stay in your shell.
                How witty you are... You should write books. I bet lots would buy them.

                Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                I think that you are under-estimating the emotional connection of tribal life. How can you not feel emotions if you live around someone and your economic/survival activity is interconnected? You are all up in their business, you hear everyone fucking, you see all of the nonverbal communication all day, etc etc. Have you ever like, gone to camp? Or lived in a student residence or something?
                Yes I have. There's lots of competition for women, and there's lots of communal events that could easily translate to gangbangs if we were tribal or living in Ancient Greece. Still, you're comparing modern society with it's monogamous morals and memes to ancient society with a lack thereof.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                  Our general disagreement seems to center around the frequency of monogamy in other cultures than our own. What can you site that shows monogamy in these other cultures? These cultures must be far removed from our own for them to count.

                  My readings have all basically pointed towards polyamory in most/all cultures pre-agriculture and even a lot of cultures post-agriculture.
                  Humans are believed to have been leaning towards monogamy anywhere between A. Afarensis and 20k years ago.
                  From the Cover: Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of modern humans
                  http://link.springer.com/article/10....239-003-2458-x
                  (Both sides illustrated.)

                  The World Cultures report shows that pretty much the entire globe has monogamy within societies that practise any form of partnership, implying that people who don't engage in polygamy early don't turn polygamous (aka: it's something set by society, not a natural inclination one way or another).
                  http://worldcultures.org/SCCS1.pdf

                  An example of a specific tribe would be the Hadza, that practise natural monogamy. In their situation, monogamy was clearly more beneficial to the tribe than polygamy, so their tribal structure promotes monogamy. This, in turn, leads to couples developing intense bonds which don't allow for external relationships. In other words, they don't need polygamy in their society, so they rarely become polygamous (bar the odd person who is naturally "fixed", the same way I'm "fixed" as monogamous, despite living in a polygamous society).
                  As their form of monogamy is unenforced, they often separate due to aging (attractiveness is the main reason for partnership) or changes in social structure, but that's just part of any socially-based behaviour. (Much the same way we live in a polygamous society, but two people may still, after 20 years of polygamy, settle for one partner forever thenceforth.)
                  They're probably the best example of a natural human, as their society, whilst it leans towards exclusive partnership, does not enforce anything. It's clear that, in this scenario, humans lean towards monogamy within the relationship, with many becoming digamous (forming another monogamous relationship after ending the first), but a large number remaining permanently monogamous also.
                  This variety points towards social flexibility, where you start off inclined toward monogamy and then adapt, rather than being polygamous from the start.
                  Hadza people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/...of%20hadza.pdf
                  --
                  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 wiltondeportes View Post
                    Our general disagreement seems to center around the frequency of monogamy in other cultures than our own. What can you site that shows monogamy in these other cultures? These cultures must be far removed from our own for them to count.

                    My readings have all basically pointed towards polyamory in most/all cultures pre-agriculture and even a lot of cultures post-agriculture.
                    Humans are believed to have been leaning towards monogamy anywhere between A. Afarensis and 20k years ago.
                    From the Cover: Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of modern humans
                    http://link.springer.com/article/10....239-003-2458-x
                    (Both sides illustrated.)

                    The World Cultures report shows that pretty much the entire globe has monogamy within societies that practise any form of partnership, implying that people who don't engage in polygamy early don't turn polygamous (aka: it's something set by society, not a natural inclination one way or another).
                    http://worldcultures.org/SCCS1.pdf

                    An example of a specific tribe would be the Hadza, that practise natural monogamy. In their situation, monogamy was clearly more beneficial to the tribe than polygamy, so their tribal structure promotes monogamy. This, in turn, leads to couples developing intense bonds which don't allow for external relationships. In other words, they don't need polygamy in their society, so they rarely become polygamous (bar the odd person who is naturally "fixed", the same way I'm "fixed" as monogamous, despite living in a polygamous society).
                    As their form of monogamy is unenforced, they often separate due to aging (attractiveness is the main reason for partnership) or changes in social structure, but that's just part of any socially-based behaviour. (Much the same way we live in a polygamous society, but two people may still, after 20 years of polygamy, settle for one partner forever thenceforth.)
                    They're probably the best example of a natural human, as their society, whilst it leans towards exclusive partnership, does not enforce anything. It's clear that, in this scenario, humans lean towards monogamy within the relationship, with many becoming digamous (forming another monogamous relationship after ending the first), but a large number remaining permanently monogamous also.
                    This variety points towards social flexibility, where you start off inclined toward monogamy and then adapt, rather than being polygamous from the start.
                    Hadza people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                    http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/...of%20hadza.pdf
                    --
                    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 eKatherine View Post
                      I didn't realize the thread topic had changed.
                      You're good.
                      The above should be viewed as complete and utter nonsense.

                      Comment


                      • Yes I have. There's lots of competition for women, and there's lots of communal events that could easily translate to gangbangs if we were tribal or living in Ancient Greece.
                        I am not so sure that this makes sense to me- if there is intense competition for individual women, why would the fitter men let everyone get in on that?

                        Still, you're comparing modern society with it's monogamous morals and memes to ancient society with a lack thereof.
                        I am not talking about monogamy or anything, just refuting your idea that you can somehow be born into and raised in a small clan, and not have a likelong emotional attachment to everyone around you.
                        "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

                        Jack london, "Before Adam"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                          I am not so sure that this makes sense to me- if there is intense competition for individual women, why would the fitter men let everyone get in on that?
                          For the sake of peace; that's one reason the men would let them in on it.
                          Secondly, there's enough women to go around for most men, so just the elite men can't control all the women if they all have sex at the same time.
                          Thirdly, the women want it to happen. Women want diversity in their partners because the fittest sperm is not always apparent, but there will be more opportunities for a higher level of sperm fitness if the woman has a lot of partners.

                          Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                          I am not talking about monogamy or anything, just refuting your idea that you can somehow be born into and raised in a small clan, and not have a likelong emotional attachment to everyone around you.
                          You will have strong bonds with some and weak bonds with some. This is no different from any family or social circle you've ever been in. You're romanticizing the tribal emotions to an extent.

                          Comment


                          • I do not believe this to be the case- "indifferent" is not a feeling I have about any face that I see daily'ish. Some of my paisan anger or offend or disgust me, but none are just nothing to me.

                            For the sake of peace; that's one reason the men would let them in on it.
                            LOL! what?! What fit men even want peace? The ones laying claim to multiple women are doing so exactly because the prospect of fighting men over them is not an uncomfortable one.

                            Secondly, there's enough women to go around for most men,
                            I also don't understand this; no there aren't. If the population is roughly half of each, or even 3 women to 2 men, still- nah. If there are Shaquille O'Neal men with harems, then there are a lot of lesser males that maybe get to gang-rape lower outsider women in exchange for carrying his spears and shit.

                            Thirdly, the women want it to happen. Women want diversity in their partners because the fittest sperm is not always apparent
                            weren't you just arguing with the, "but who understood reproduction" crowd? Obviously women like cumming though, duh.

                            , but there will be more opportunities for a higher level of sperm fitness if the woman has a lot of partners.
                            I also disagree with this, because everyone in a clan is like, 2nd-cousins at the furthest family relationship, and everyone is basically drawing on the the same genetic material.

                            I also never understood why people link reproduction with sexual desire, when you can see in your daily life how malleable and socially-determined (status-oriented as in scarcity-fear driven) and imprintable desire is.
                            "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

                            Jack london, "Before Adam"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kochin View Post
                              A lack of sexual dimorphism would show both sexes had equal powers in sexual relationships (disproving polygyny and polyandry). However, modern humans are sexual dimorphic.
                              -Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that women have 40-60% the upper body strength of men, and 70-75% the lower body strength.
                              -In Olympic weightlifting, male records vary from 5.5 body mass in the lowest weight category to 4.2 in the highest weight category, while female records vary from 4.4 to 3.8 (see Olympic weightlifting records).
                              -According to Daly and Wilson, "The sexes differ more in human beings than in monogamous mammals, but much less than in extremely polygamous mammals."[Link]


                              I concede there is not the extreme level of sexual dimorphism that is found in other animals. Why? I think one major reason the is the complex human society needs all members to contribute to survive. Even if you thought this lack of extreme sexual dimorphism disproves polygyny and polyandry, this says nothing about amount of sexual partners (not disproving polyamory or polygynandry).
                              -One proposed explanation is that human sexuality has developed more in common with its close relative the bonobo, who have similar sexual dimorphism and which are polygynandrous and use recreational sex to reinforce social bonds and reduce aggression.[Link]



                              Originally posted by Kochin View Post
                              The World Cultures report shows that pretty much the entire globe has monogamy within societies that practise any form of partnership, implying that people who don't engage in polygamy early don't turn polygamous (aka: it's something set by society, not a natural inclination one way or another).
                              http://worldcultures.org/SCCS1.pdf
                              Show me where on this report. It is not clearly pointing anything towards this topic.

                              Originally posted by Kochin View Post
                              An example of a specific tribe would be the Hadza, that practise natural monogamy. In their situation, monogamy was clearly more beneficial to the tribe than polygamy, so their tribal structure promotes monogamy. This, in turn, leads to couples developing intense bonds which don't allow for external relationships. In other words, they don't need polygamy in their society, so they rarely become polygamous (bar the odd person who is naturally "fixed", the same way I'm "fixed" as monogamous, despite living in a polygamous society).
                              As their form of monogamy is unenforced, they often separate due to aging (attractiveness is the main reason for partnership) or changes in social structure, but that's just part of any socially-based behaviour. (Much the same way we live in a polygamous society, but two people may still, after 20 years of polygamy, settle for one partner forever thenceforth.)
                              They're probably the best example of a natural human, as their society, whilst it leans towards exclusive partnership, does not enforce anything. It's clear that, in this scenario, humans lean towards monogamy within the relationship, with many becoming digamous (forming another monogamous relationship after ending the first), but a large number remaining permanently monogamous also.
                              This variety points towards social flexibility, where you start off inclined toward monogamy and then adapt, rather than being polygamous from the start.
                              Hadza people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                              http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/...of%20hadza.pdf
                              First of all, Page 370 of that Harvard study is interesting evidence that Men trade "Power and potential for children to have power (intelligence)" in exchange for "sex (fertility and youth)".
                              Secondly, we don't live in a polygamist society. This refers to marriage of 3 or more people together. Some youth live polyamorously while the rest do not live at all. Most adults live monogamously, although they may continue their youth for any period of time after physically maturing.

                              Other than that, I find your Hadza example curious. You're extremely brash to say they should be the *best* example of "natural" (whatever that means) humans. I will have to read more about them when I get a chance.

                              The Hadza is one tribe. I've mostly read about tribes practicing poly sex in some form. I tried to find some sources for this, but Google is failing me. I can't find sexual practices for tribes period, whether they be poly-, mono-, or di-. I will come back to this thread later and do this.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X