Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 97

Thread: Sex and Primal relationships page 9

  1. #81
    T_bone's Avatar
    T_bone is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4

    Yup

    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    Go to the Primal attraction thread.

    In feminism, women want to get the best of both worlds again. They want sexual freedom to get that powerful seed, and they want government assistance and alimony to get support when they raise the child from that powerful seed. Powerful men win, subordinate men lose. Women win. Humanity's genetics win.
    And that's the way the railroad runs...........

  2. #82
    Winterbike's Avatar
    Winterbike is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    Sex at Dawn mostly banged on about promiscuity, and specifically the premise of women having lots of group sex, which I guess makes some sense. But then their end 'conclusion' is that women should expect men to cheat on them and that it's not even really cheating at all, and that seemed to me to be quite a jarring left turn from the rest of the book.

    Plus, it completely ignores the reality of male sexual jealousy and kind of pretends we are all bonobos living in a tribal setting of small groups of people, which is a nice fantasy. But that's all it is, a fantasy.
    Uh?

    The point of the book is that what people consider ''normal'' relationships in our modern world is deeply flawed because agriculture and religion changed our whole perspective on them, and we keep trying to fit triangles into round holes. His book is to modern sexuality what the paleo diet is to modern nutrition. People think they're doing the right thing, but they're not. It's just about getting a new way of considering the whole problem. He's not saying you should ''cheat'' as much as you can, the same way Mark Sisson isn't saying we should ditch hospitals when we break a leg.

  3. #83
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Winterbike View Post
    Uh?

    The point of the book is that what people consider ''normal'' relationships in our modern world is deeply flawed because agriculture and religion changed our whole perspective on them, and we keep trying to fit triangles into round holes. His book is to modern sexuality what the paleo diet is to modern nutrition. People think they're doing the right thing, but they're not. It's just about getting a new way of considering the whole problem. He's not saying you should ''cheat'' as much as you can, the same way Mark Sisson isn't saying we should ditch hospitals when we break a leg.
    I think those who lose in a "Sex at Dawn" situation naturally come out and disparage it for the sake of themselves. That, or they can't bare the thought of a change in their lifestyle and values. Much in old western culture revolved around the property of the wife. Getting married and having kids gave you sex, a maid, and servants to help on the farm. The conservatively minded people today cling to these ideals like a religion.

    Is it good or bad? I think it works in the right environment, one of agriculture and the man producing all value in the household. It's good for the man who has not risen to power, which could be said for the majority of men today especially. It is bad for genetics, higher levels of thinking and achievement, and total human rights.

  4. #84
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Winterbike View Post
    Uh?

    The point of the book is that what people consider ''normal'' relationships in our modern world is deeply flawed because agriculture and religion changed our whole perspective on them, and we keep trying to fit triangles into round holes. His book is to modern sexuality what the paleo diet is to modern nutrition. People think they're doing the right thing, but they're not. It's just about getting a new way of considering the whole problem. He's not saying you should ''cheat'' as much as you can, the same way Mark Sisson isn't saying we should ditch hospitals when we break a leg.
    Yes, I oversimplified in an attempt to keep my summary concise.

    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 (regardles of what wilton says). 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    It is bad for genetics, higher levels of thinking and achievement, and total human rights.
    Sorry, even though I disagreed with basically your entire post, I couldn't let this one go. Given that the industrial age, enlightenment and the reformation were all directly driven by protestantism, and protestants could presumably be argued to support monogamy, what evidence do you have that polyamory has or will lead to higher levels of thinking or achievement?
    Last edited by magicmerl; 03-19-2013 at 07:32 PM. Reason: sp
    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

  5. #85
    Winterbike's Avatar
    Winterbike is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    Yes, I oversimplified in an attempt to keep my summary concise.

    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 (regardles of what wilton says). 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 forgager 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.
    Your arguments are valid, especially about cherry-picking data, though I can't seem to shake off the idea that they all seem similar to what we usually hear about paleo.

    Maybe I've listened to the Joe Rogan podcast too much, but I feel like a living situation where I'm surrounded by a bunch of friends I all love and can have deep meaningful (sexual included) interactions with is something worth aiming for, the same way aiming to eat like a caveman in a modern society is worth it. It should be the default thing we aspire for, not a monogamous marriage, even though that can work some times.

    Awwww damn. I just reread that and... I'm a hippie.

  6. #86
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    Sorry, even though I disagreed with basically your entire post, I couldn't let this one go. Given that the industrial age, enlightenment and the reformation were all directly driven by protestantism, and protestants could presumably be argued to support monogamy, what evidence do you have that polyamory has or will lead to higher levels of thinking or achievement?
    What else has protestantism relied upon? Usurping other nations for their resources and expansion of territory whenever possible. I think we've reached a point in the 21st century where we know this cannot continue without expansion to outer space at some point. So, lifestyle must eventually change. I don't see why a change in sexual lifestyle would mean an end to all that is reputed to 'protestantism' either.

    Should we all believe in a sky god too because that's the only way to advance and achieve? I don't believe it. There are ways for us to evolve as a society.

    There is also the naturalistic fallacy that says anything natural is good. So since it's natural to be polyamorous, it should be good. I do not believe in the naturalistic fallacy, but it does generally provide a great guideline for how to live. I guess this is one my intuitive and faith-based notions that all humans are liable to have. I don't use it as a crutch though, and it is not necessary to use in this argument.

    P.S. here's another strike against protestantism: They have utopian ideals. I think this leads to too much trusting of the government and too much dogma about certain freedoms they think others should not have. Our country was not founded by protestants. Our forefathers, if religious, kept theism to themselves. When they first set up our government, they had first hand knowledge of what happens with utopian ideals: they get corrupted by corrupt humans because humans are not perfect. I think today, protestantism keeps people in the dark about the world. If they didn't have the utopian beliefs, they would see the world as it is, and our government would be ran much more fairly.

    Is it utopian to expect people to damper their utopian ideals? Are people too utopian naturally to ever fully and permanently adopt realistic principles as a population? Now THAT would be an interesting discussion that I would have to think on for a while.
    Last edited by wiltondeportes; 03-20-2013 at 01:20 AM.

  7. #87
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Winterbike View Post
    Your arguments are valid, especially about cherry-picking data, though I can't seem to shake off the idea that they all seem similar to what we usually hear about paleo.
    Sure, but most of the 'rebuttals' of paleo are fairly easy to disprove evidentially and not almost seem stupid to my jaded self. I'm certainly open to some or all of those points listed above being wrong (I just rattled them off the top of my head, and it's a while since I read the book). If they are wrong, feel free to shoot them down. I'm a big boy and don't have my ego invested in the argument. I'm perfectly happy to change my position if I see evidence that I think is compelling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Winterbike View Post
    Maybe I've listened to the Joe Rogan podcast too much, but I feel like a living situation where I'm surrounded by a bunch of friends I all love and can have deep meaningful (sexual included) interactions with is something worth aiming for, the same way aiming to eat like a caveman in a modern society is worth it. It should be the default thing we aspire for, not a monogamous marriage, even though that can work some times.

    Awwww damn. I just reread that and... I'm a hippie.
    Heh. I guess you are.

    Why do you think that polyamory should be the default thing we should aspire to? I mean, you've stated it, but not your reasons for it. People seem to be bad enough at maintaining a relationship with one significant other, having multiple others seems like it's even harder?
    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

  8. #88
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,470
    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    To me, skill in bed can be learned and taught and practiced over time.

    Just because a person is bad (or inexperienced) on a given day doesn't mean that it's ad infinitum or reductionist. If a person is 'bad' -- then the foundation of trust in the relationship can be a space for dialogue about what was not pleasurable about the experience and then an exploration of how to make the experience more pleasurable for both parties.
    You're talking about being "bad" as if it's purely caused by inexperience. Trust me, there are people with plenty of experience who are just clumsy and awkward and unfulfilling to fornicate with.

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    In my own relationship, my husband and I are highly specialized to each other. Over the 15 years of our relationship (and each being each other's "firsts" from our early 20s), I can say that we started out quite "bad" in bed. Over time we have explored, experimented, communicated, and ultimately created a really fun, "skilled" sex life.
    So you're claiming you and your husband are good at sex now despite having absolutely 0 frame of reference? Or are you swingers? I'm totally cool with that lifestyle choice if that's what you're into.

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    But those skills may not transfer to another sexual encounter or relationship. Parts of it will -- such as the confidence, experience of my own body, and possibility the ability to communicate what I want (which I can openly do with my partner while we are progressing through orgasms! weeeee!). But other parts of it may not because I don't yet have the skills attuned specifically to him.

    As such, he might think that I'm "bad in bed" and therefore we are not "sexually compatible."
    What if he's massively well hung and you're not able to accommodate him? Is it really so terrible to find out early in the case that things aren't going to work sexually and move on to different opportunities?

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    But what if, instead of just making that assumption and jumping ship, he assumed that perhaps I was both eager to learn and eager to please because I wanted to continue a relationship with him? That I wanted to have all of the benefits of a great relationship over time -- including a really vibrant, specialized, pleasurable sex life?
    Don't you think you'd have a better chance of proving you're eager to learn and eager to please by showing him rather than asking him to assume?

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    You see?
    No. I think you are lucky if you ended up in a sexually satisfying relationship with the first person you ever slept with. I'm happy for you. But it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't set forth the most logical way to proceed with dating.

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    I truly believe that a person can learn to be "good in bed" -- if both parties are invested in co-creating that.
    Some people can't dance. Some people can't draw or paint. Some people just can't screw. I'm not naming names, but trust me that such people exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    And it's sad to me that I might be judged on one or a handful of sexual experiences to determine "compatibility" when the other aspects of the relationship may demonstrate that more, and htis particular skill can be learned.
    I am not saying I have the best sex with anyone the first handful of times, but I know within the first handful of times if satisfying sex is in the cards or not. The fact that this saddens you isn't a real argument against it. It's an argument against wanting to believe it.

  9. #89
    Winterbike's Avatar
    Winterbike is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    Why do you think that polyamory should be the default thing we should aspire to? I mean, you've stated it, but not your reasons for it. People seem to be bad enough at maintaining a relationship with one significant other, having multiple others seems like it's even harder?
    Is monogamy so hard because there aren't multiple others? (I'm just guessing here).

    What I liked about Sex at dawn is that it evokes the possibility of sex without guilt, manipulation, shame, and all the bullshit that usually comes with it (I blame religions for most of it). Why wouldn't I want to live in a world where I can be myself and not feel the judgment of small-minded bigots who hate themselves so much they have to restrict others from having fun? What if I spent my life with people I trust, people I love, and people I can feel free enough to have sex with, and just feel damn good about it? What if the guy you and your wife are having a threesome with is a friend who's mature, and open-minded, and free, and who you respect and love? Doesn't it make it better, and a lot more meaningful? It looks a lot more like the natural human state to me than what we've been brainwashed to think we should feel whenever sexuality comes up (it's dirty, yuck, you should be ashamed to like that, you should be jealous she's having fun, IT'S ALL SINS!!!, women shouldn't enjoy it, yada yada yada).

  10. #90
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,219
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    I agree that sex has a lot of that baggage associated with it, and it doesn't need to, and it's a shame. I agree that religion is the primary culprit for the baggage.

    I don't think that threesomes are necessarily 'better' or 'more meaningful'.

    What you are describing sounds Utopian. I'm not saying that to say it's bad, just that maybe it's impossible in an imperfect world?
    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

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •