Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920
Results 191 to 194 of 194

Thread: Want to go Primal? Drop the wife or husband (Rule #11) page 20

  1. #191
    Mr.Perfidy's Avatar
    Mr.Perfidy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    1,523
    Primal Fuel
    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"

  2. #192
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  3. #193
    Mr.Perfidy's Avatar
    Mr.Perfidy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    1,523
    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"

  4. #194
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote 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]



    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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