Page 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 194

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

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    196

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

    Hey guys,

    This is not a joke and I'm not trolling.

    We're all here because we feel we need to live our lives according to our primal / natural needs.

    There is a lot of research saying that we're non monogamous, that we're not designed to stay in long term relationships with just one partner.

    In the small tribes that Gork used to live in, everyone were sharing everything - the food, the security and.... sexual partners.

    That made sense because when everybody is sharing everything everyone is safer. No woman or child is dependent on ONE man. When everybody is sleeping with everybody - nobody knows who fathered who so the males protect all the children.

    Monogamy was basically "invented" by the elite to organize society so private property could be accumulated and taxed, for social classes to be created, for wealth to be passed on from one generation to the next. Monogamy is what brought us here, to the where our civilization is today, but it is no longer necessary.

    There is tons of research in this area and the most popular book written on the subject is this one:

    Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships: Christopher Ryan, Cacilda Jetha: 9780061707810: Amazon.com: Books

    I copy here part of a review from Amazon:

    "The suggestion that humans did not evolve as a monogamous species is not as radical an idea as it may sound. In The Descent of Man Charles Darwin wrote, "Those who have most closely studied the subject [particularly the anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan] believe that communal marriage was the original and universal form throughout the world." Yet ever since the nineteenth century anthropologists have struggled over how to identify the mating system of human beings. In 1967 George P. Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas reported that only 14.5% of modern preindustrial societies could be classified as monogamous. Yet, in the West, researchers commonly refer to humans as "serially monogamous," based on the pattern of repeated monogamous marriages throughout men and women's lifetimes. But with over half of divorces occurring because of infidelity and one in 25 dads unknowingly raising children that they didn't father, this is not a picture that fits comfortably with monogamy of any sort, serial or otherwise.

    However, by looking at modern indigenous societies and comparing the findings of anthropologists with the latest results in behavioral psychology and biology, Ryan and Jethá piece together a remarkably coherent pattern from an otherwise fractured understanding of human sexuality. From societies that believe that multiple men are necessary for a successful pregnancy (what researchers refer to as "partible paternity") to those where not having an extra-marital tryst will cause a man to be labeled "stingy of one's genitals" by his female suitors, the authors conclude that marriage may be an established social arrangement among many hunter-gatherers but it's one in which sexuality is decidedly fluid. A range of physiological evidence from Western populations is further offered to support this position, from the year-round libido in both sexes, to the unusually large size of men's genitalia compared to other apes, to the shifting sexual strategy during various stages in women's reproductive cycle (and lest we forget multiple female orgasms?). All suggest that our species is adapted for several concurrent sexual partners."

    (the reference to multiple orgasms in females - in Gork's tribe women used to have sex with a few males, one after the other, to increase the chance of insemination and so it will be impossible to know who fathered the offspring, as mentioned above)


    So I wanted to start a discussion here about this subject and see what you guys think. Was this ever discussed in the community?

    As for myself, even before going into primal eating habits, I realized that long term monogamous relationships are "not for me". Only later I discovered that they are actually not for anyone and that it's just another example of how our culture has engineered us in a specific way, mainly to the benefit of the elite.
    Last edited by Davidil; 06-19-2013 at 01:11 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    7,839
    I'll continue to stay married, thanks. I enjoy this monogamy thing. It works for me.

    And FWIW, certainly "feel" like I am this way, and that it's not simply acculturation. Nor do I think that it's for "everyone." Ie, I don't believe one way or the other is "universal."
    Last edited by zoebird; 06-19-2013 at 01:13 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    Nor do I think that it's for "everyone." Ie, I don't believe one way or the other is "universal."
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    7,839
    First, I obviously answered, so at a certain level, I'm happy to disagree with you.

    Beyond that, it's not as if your idea is "new" to the forum. You are knew to the forum, but a quick forum search will show you many other (usually men) who come in here and talk about how they should be able to have lots of partners because it's how we evolved and stuff. It's basically *yawn* and do whatever you want (so long as you have consent from those with whom you do it).

    Second, I also don't believe that we are all supposed to eat a certain way, or exercise/move a certain way, etc. Human beings living on different parts of the planet had different food availability, and being highly adaptive creatures, tended to do well on a variety of different diets. Compare Inuits to Kitivans to Maasai etc. Thai women to Swedish women (modern study switching their diets in controlled groups, and when women ate food form their culture/heritage, their health was better than eating form another heritage. this does not say, btw, that a swedish woman *should not* eat thai food, but rather that people might do better on the diet of their heritage than just a "healthy diet" such as an okinawan or mediterranean diet.).

    I truly believe that human beings are highly adaptable, socially complex creatures with a variety of healthy opportunities at their disposal to use as they see fit.

    Beyond this, there are lots of ways to have a sex life, with plenty of consent and happiness. Married couples (or unmarried couples) join swingers clubs, for example, in order to experience multiple partners. Some people have polyamorous relationships. Some people are monogamous. Some people are serial monogamists. It's really just a matter of what a person wants.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    7,839
    Quote 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?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Norco, California
    Posts
    1,312
    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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19
    If you don't want to live monogamously with one partner, than don't, but suggesting it's not for anyone is way off base. None of the research proves conclusively that humanoid civilizations never lived in monogamous relationships. All you have there are a bunch of assumptions and theories with no tangible way to prove them. With our highly developed brains and all that, we are all capable of making a choice regarding our lifestyles. You may want to consider the high rate of sexually transmitted diseases and infections in those who do not live in committed or otherwise monogamous relationships. Safe sex wasn't exactly an option back then. In every community group there was certainly the possibility that some chose monogamy while others chose to share partners.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by primalfoodie View Post
    If you don't want to live monogamously with one partner, than don't, but suggesting it's not for anyone is way off base. None of the research proves conclusively that humanoid civilizations never lived in monogamous relationships. All you have there are a bunch of assumptions and theories with no tangible way to prove them. With our highly developed brains and all that, we are all capable of making a choice regarding our lifestyles. You may want to consider the high rate of sexually transmitted diseases and infections in those who do not live in committed or otherwise monogamous relationships. Safe sex wasn't exactly an option back then. In every community group there was certainly the possibility that some chose monogamy while others chose to share partners.
    +1

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by primalfoodie View Post
    If you don't want to live monogamously with one partner, than don't, but suggesting it's not for anyone is way off base. None of the research proves conclusively that humanoid civilizations never lived in monogamous relationships. All you have there are a bunch of assumptions and theories with no tangible way to prove them. With our highly developed brains and all that, we are all capable of making a choice regarding our lifestyles. You may want to consider the high rate of sexually transmitted diseases and infections in those who do not live in committed or otherwise monogamous relationships. Safe sex wasn't exactly an option back then. In every community group there was certainly the possibility that some chose monogamy while others chose to share partners.
    No. There IS evidence. And making choices is one thing, what is natural for your body is another. You can also make the choice to eat grain, it doesn't mean its good for you.

    Guys (and girls):

    Next time you argue with your partner about some stupid shit, like "I told you never to put the remote over there!!!!!" Realize that you're expressing your sexual and other frustrations that originate in the unnatural way your life is organized and NOT because the TV's remote is in the "wrong" place.

    Living in a monogamous relationship governs the entire way youe life is organized. If that sort of arrangement is "unnatural" - then most of your life, from how you spend your night (next to the same person again and again) to how you pass your genes to the next generation, is unnatural either.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    central FL
    Posts
    6,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidil View Post
    No. There IS evidence. And making choices is one thing, what is natural for your body is another. You can also make the choice to eat grain, it doesn't mean its good for you.

    Guys (and girls):

    Next time you argue with your partner about some stupid shit, like "I told you never to put the remote over there!!!!!" Realize that you're expressing your sexual and other frustrations that originate in the unnatural way your life is organized and NOT because the TV's remote is in the "wrong" place.

    Living in a monogamous relationship governs the entire way youe life is organized. If that sort of arrangement is "unnatural" - then most of your life, from how you spend your night (next to the same person again and again) to how you pass your genes to the next generation, is unnatural either.
    This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.
    Thanks for ending my interest in this thread with this completely well thought out argument. /sarcasm.
    “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.


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
  •