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

  • #76
    Davidil, this is far from the first time that Sex at Dawn has cropped up here.

    Here's a post I made in a previous thread:

    At the end of the day people can have whatever relationships they want. I'm not opposed to polyamory whether I practice it myself or not. I think that the SAD authors built an alternative narrative that has elements of truth in it (greater plasticity and range of female sexual desires than male, for example), but is not superior to conventional ones.

    Additionally, they cherry picked data to support their narrative, by:
    a. Preferring bonobos to paleolithic human relationship structures

    b. Preferring bonobos to chimpanzee relationship structures (when both are equidistant from us)

    c. Discounting evidence which refutes their narrative like male teste with questionable science

    d. Failing to address for the different social structures between a 'tribe' or 70 or so individuals (where everybody knows each other) and modern society (where most people in the same city are strangers to us)

    e. Discounting agricultural societies when they don't fit the preferred narrative, including them when they do

    f. Glossing over the polyamorous details of the one actual forager society (inuits) because they don't fit the preferred narrative

    I can see polyamorous behaviour working successfully in a small tribal setting (like a commune maybe)? But I can't see it working on a large scale in a much larger society more successfully than monogamy does.
    Last edited by magicmerl; 06-19-2013, 05:19 PM.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by noodletoy View Post
      my b/f and i have been together almost 11 years. we love each other's company, laugh and the sex remains great. we respect each other and don't fight over petty shit.

      we don't live together. perfect for us both.
      That may very well be the secret to long term harmony.

      Comment


      • #78
        Haha.... you don't live together. You've basically proved my point. Thanks.

        Comment


        • #79
          I think like most things in life including degrees of the Paleo lifestyle, that monogomy is more for some than others. I have always been only with one person at a time. I frankly find sufficient satisfaction in that, even more than I can handle at times. I'm not just talking about sex either. For me there is a large amount of emotional effort that I extend toward my wife and even toward the one girlfriend I had had throughout high school that honestly left me with little to express toward another person. In fact I did not even want to. While yes I can look at another women and certainly think that she may be attractive, etc. but for me to cross the line of "adding" her to my eligibility list is just not happening.

          However, I am not saying it is not ok for someone else to do their life another way than the way I do mine. I am just saying that the only rule about life is that there are no rules. We each need to make our own decisions about this and many other things. For me these decisions are abstractions of my own life which may or may not apply to anyone else. Just as someone eslse's life decisions are their own abstractions which might not be applicable to me. In either event I judge not, one way or the other for I am too busy living my own life to care all that much.

          PaleoDog

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Davidil View Post
            Why not? If we're all meant to eat a certain way, why we're not meant to mate in a certain way?

            I agree that it might be "right" for some. 1% of people are asexual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality) , and 10% or so are born gay. I think maybe 10% are born monogamous but most people are not, which explains the high divorce rates (70% in some countries)

            I think this is a worthwhile discussion.

            Thanks
            Yay, fake statistics pulled out of the air! Way to go!

            The problem here is that I don't think of it in terms of genetics. It's not comparable to being gay or asexual, even though it is related to human sexuality.

            I don't see my free choice and enjoyment of monogamy is A. genetic or B. needing to be universally applied.

            You keep asserting that "the majority of people" or "everyone" *should* behave in a certain way. I disagree. I think people should behave how they want to (within rules of social decency, consent, etc) with no judgment from you, whether they see it as genetic or not.

            I'm tired of this "worthwhile" discussion because it's usually just a random guy who just wants to have sex with lots of women. So what? Have sex with lots of partners then. Why do you need a justification for it?

            Comment


            • #81
              Great thread. Magnolia and eKatherine handle it beautifully and provide lots of chuckles. Thanks both of you.
              "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

              Comment


              • #82
                I'm not getting it.

                So you keep thinking about that other girl, you mentioned her to your partner and she got angry.

                And your point is.... ?


                Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                I think that the worst responsible offender is the "fantasy" that you (davidlil) are talking about; you can be in a monogamous relationship without having all of these admittedly ridiculous bullshit ideas about fidelity and shit.

                My wife for example- we had a big bbq with awesome competitions a few weekends ago, and there was a girl there that we had never met; everyone we know has been talking since then about how hot she is, and my brother tried kickin game with her and failed flat- she mentioned in the course of that conversation that she thought my wife was hot.

                So I told my wife, who seemed suspiciously and encouragingly flattered. Yesterday, she was trying on a new outfit and said that she looked like Peg Bundy. So, I said "Maybe that's why (bbq girl) thought you were hot- I bet a lot of people had a thing for Peggy."

                She then proceeded to be sad and angry, muttering something stupid like, "Why would you think about that?"

                I tried not to laugh in her face. What kinda fuckin question is that?!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Or, alternately, you could meet someone polyamorous, and marry them, AND still date other people. Works for quite a few people (myself and wife included)...
                  Peak weight on Standard American Diet: 316.8 lbs
                  Initial Weight When Starting Primal: 275 lbs
                  Current weight: 210.8 lbs
                  Goal weight: 220 lbs (or less): MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

                  The way "ChooseMyPlate.gov" should have looked:
                  ChooseMyPlate

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by keithpowers View Post
                    Or, alternately, you could meet someone polyamorous, and marry them, AND still date other people. Works for quite a few people (myself and wife included)...
                    my hero...
                    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


                    • #85
                      just because its in a book (sex at dawn) doesnt mean its true. I bet if you read the china study you would quit meat too...

                      Sex at Dawn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                      The book was criticized for "biased reporting of data, theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings, and problematic assumptions" in a book review by Ryan Ellsworth, graduate student at the University of Missouri, in the peer reviewed journal Evolutionary Psychology. Ellsworth concludes the review by saying, "To be sure, I doubt that any serious evolutionary scientist, even the most ardent supporter of the 'standard narrative,' would argue that humans evolved in a milieu of perfectly monogamous pairbonds." He then summarizes his objections as a matter of degree: "if promiscuity even slightly approaching bonobo levels were characteristic of (post-Homo erectus) ancestral sexuality, there would be much more evidence for it than Sex at Dawn manages to drum up." He accuses his fellow scientists of failing to give the Sex at Dawn the attention it deserves because of its popularity and potential to mislead the public, stating that the book presents "a distorted portrayal of current theory and evidence on evolved human sexuality" to the general public.[2]

                      David Barash, author of The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People wrote that Ryan and Jethá "ignore and/or misrepresent reams of anthropology and biology in their eagerness to make a brief for some sort of Rousseau-ian sexual idyll that exists—and/or existed—only in their overheated libidinous imaginations" in an approving review of Sex at Dusk, a rebuttal to Sex at Dawn.[1] Barash writes that he finds it annoying that the book "has been taken as scientifically valid by large numbers of naďve readers … whereas it is an intellectually myopic, ideologically driven, pseudo-scientific fraud." In short, "just as multiple sexual partners can increase the fitness of a philanderer, the same behavior on the part of one’s partner can reduce the other’s fitness. Hence, sexual jealousy is a very widespread and fitness-enhancing trait, as is a roving eye."[1]

                      personally, I think some men applaud this book just to justify their own desires..

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        My two cents:

                        It seems to me that monogamous societies have outcompeted those that are not. They control more resources and have more people. That is the definition of evolutionary success. Official monogamy is still troubled by a high percentage of infidelity. If environmental conditions change, monogamous societies could find themselves losing out. It is the variability in reproductive modes that will keep our species going.

                        I read (I think in Memoirs of a Primate) that the alpha male primates die younger due to the stress and vigilance required to maintain their status. The chill, secondary baboons that sneak off for a tryst and generally get along with everyone, including the females and youngsters, lead longer, more content lives.

                        True female sexual freedom (birth control) is in its infancy and we have no idea how that will affect sexual attitudes in the long run. We are already in serious trouble with plunging birthrates in the US and Europe. I think women in the US are being raised to believe that they can and should do it all...have a family and a career, without being told that, to do that, other resources are required (the village). But that is a different topic.

                        I would be ok with my guy going outside the relationship for some strange, but only if I had the same privilege. STD's, anyone?
                        As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          The illusion is that sex is all and only ever about free will. The fact is that humans exist because the species has evolved successful procreational strategies, which come with a strong dose of pleasure as a major incentive to keep procreating.

                          For a male to hook up with as many partners as possible is merely one strategy, and likely not the most successful. Under primitive conditions, the death rate for his offspring was probably much higher than that of couples involved in some sort of monogamy, another successful procreational strategy. But still, some survived to carry on the tendency toward that behavioral trait.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            I haven't read Sex at Dawn or Dusk for that matter and I don't really need evolutionary biology to tell me how to live my life.

                            That said, I think a whole lot of this argument seems to be about polar extremes. If someone says that lifelong monogamy is not a "natural" arrangement, then the assumption is made that they are saying they want to hook up with everybody and their cousin by Monday morning. There are a lot of arrangements in between.

                            I do believe in honoring your promises if someone made til death do us part promises. So I am not "advocating" marital infidelity. Sneaking around and lying to your partner are never a good thing. I'm just saying that perhaps making the promise in the first place was really the problem. If people could be open and honest with each other up front and not try to make one person be the be all and end all of their life forever, perhaps they would actually stay together longer and be happier. Everybody could understand that an occasional something physical on the side does not necessarily mean that you stopped caring about your primary partner.

                            And I am talking about equal opportunity for something on the side here. The advent of reliable birth control has made a great deal of "evo-psy" pretty irrelevant to the real world.

                            And, as someone pointed out, the advent of modern STDs makes everybody humping like bonobos probably not such a good idea either.

                            We modern humans need to find a middle path. I think having a discussion about this is healthy and I don't think shutting it down with, "Well they are just a bunch of guys who want to justify and rationalize their screwing around", is helpful.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              sex is
                              people are

                              every discussion comes back to economy (in the abstract)

                              if women outnumbered men 4:1 there would be no assumption of monogamy

                              if men outnumbered women 4:1 there would be much bloodshed

                              it is when numbers approach parity that these things matter, no one enjoys a zero sum game.

                              do you have someone outside yourself who cares about you even a little.... you are damned lucky.

                              do you have more??? in some cultures we call that family.. even when you are sexually active with them.
                              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


                              • #90
                                I'm not getting it.

                                So you keep thinking about that other girl, you mentioned her to your partner and she got angry.

                                And your point is.... ?
                                I was offering an anecdote that illustrated what my kinda new hero Paleobird said better:
                                That said, I think a whole lot of this argument seems to be about polar extremes. If someone says that lifelong monogamy is not a "natural" arrangement, then the assumption is made that they are saying they want to hook up with everybody and their cousin by Monday morning. There are a lot of arrangements in between.

                                I do believe in honoring your promises if someone made til death do us part promises. So I am not "advocating" marital infidelity. Sneaking around and lying to your partner are never a good thing. I'm just saying that perhaps making the promise in the first place was really the problem. If people could be open and honest with each other up front and not try to make one person be the be all and end all of their life forever, perhaps they would actually stay together longer and be happier. Everybody could understand that an occasional something physical on the side does not necessarily mean that you stopped caring about your primary partner.
                                In the case of my wife, there is a sickness in her mind that says that "loving her" means that my penis does not exist in 3-dimensions, nor is it networked to dimensions of my psychology and physiology, but rather is a Disney magic wand that is conjured for her own emotional validation. (which I believe to be a common malady infecting the minds of a great many, and to be generally representative of the regular population)
                                "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

                                Working...
                                X