Book: Sex at Dawn

I was lost at seven year olds being taken from their mothers (I have a seven year old boy). DISTURBING> I know its history and things were different... but disturbing nonetheless and for everyone concerned, not just the boy.
 
I was lost at seven year olds being taken from their mothers (I have a seven year old boy). DISTURBING> I know its history and things were different... but disturbing nonetheless and for everyone concerned, not just the boy.

RP, taking boys away from their mothers is most often practiced in societies that enforce strict gender separation. I think the reasoning is that if you allow boys to hang out with Mum and the girls too long, they grow up to be effeminate.
 
And the Spartans were of course, the ultimate warrior society.

There is less info on the Spartan women, but of course they were getting their own "lesbian" jollies back at the ranch.

Also, Spartan women had much more freedom than the women in Athens. They wore less constricting clothing, could leave the house (Athenian women rarely did), could exercise in the nude like the men, could own land, taking a large role in politics, were educated and trained in laconic speech. They were also not expected to marry and start breeding til the ripe old age of 19.
 
RP, taking boys away from their mothers is most often practiced in societies that enforce strict gender separation. I think the reasoning is that if you allow boys to hang out with Mum and the girls too long, they grow up to be effeminate.
thanks, I am aware of that.... bullshit really, but whatever... I would just not be okay with losing my boy. He already has twice as much male influence as female in this house. That is quite enough. I am not your average woman either really... no, I will hold on to my boy child and be thankful that I don't live anywhere but right here and right now. :p;)
 
From another thread, explaining one theory from this book:
The head of the human male corona is extra large and works as a squeegee to scrape out another man's semen. Not mentioned in the book is the idea that women's watery ejaculate is produced to wash out semen, to make way for something better that just came along. :p
I've got to admit to the shameful fact:eek: that I've never actually had sex with a woman right after another man has. So I can’t speak from personal experience of shifting another man’s sperm with the head of my penis. But for several years now I have been getting the occasional erection:p, and so I've had some opportunity to consider its shape. And I also seem to remember that a woman’s vagina feels (more or less) tight around it:). [I'm not the most sexually experienced of men: perhaps other couples have found this not to be the case?;)]

It therefore seems quite plausible to me that if I were to slip my erect penis into a vagina that had just received a delivery of another man’s ejaculate, I would actually be pushing some of it (perhaps even most of it) even further inwards. So far in fact (ahead of the head, so to speak) that my penis couldn’t hope to scoop it back out on subsequent thrusts.

[An analogy occurs: the famous maternal injunction to her children before leaving them at home alone: “Now, don’t go sticking beans up your nose!” I invite you to ignore her (well-meaning but naïve) advice (as did one of my brothers on a memorable occasion) and push a bean far up your nose with your finger... Now (Have you done it yet? Is the bean in place?): try to hook it out again with that same finger. (This pastime offers the potential of hours of entertainment:D. My brother was eventually taken to casualty. Apparently, the more experienced doctors stand by with an instrument rather like a crochet needle to use on the children of those mothers who proffer this injunction to their offspring.)]

So – while I have no difficulty in accepting that if 6 men ejaculate into the same vagina during the same playtime, it’s quite plausible that the healthiest spermatozoa have an edge on the rest of the field in reaching the ovum and successfully negotiating a union – I respectfully submit that this theory that penis #6 has squeegeed out a determinant amount of its rivals’ offerings doesn’t really hold water. Or other fluids.

Anthropology – and most especially prehistoric anthropology – offers wonderful scope for inventing pleasing little theories. (Pleasing to the inventor.) Allow me to offer an example from the evolutionists:

The Desmond Morris (“Tarzanist”) school of evolutionists reasons thus:
a) Our female primate ancestors (and our present-day female primate “cousins”) have flat chests.
b) Human males find large breasts sexually attractive (when it’s human females who wear them).
c) Human females (generally) have (more or less) large breasts. (Larger than most men’s anyway.)
d) The obvious inference is that female proto-humans evolved large breasts in order to sexually attract proto-human males.
e) This evolution probably occured when the males began to hunt and the females to become gardeners. Hunting was so much fun (and the males so resented being told to eat up all their cabbage:mad:) that the females needed to invent an attraction to get the men to return to the fixed-abode females:confused:. (“Hey! Let’s grow bazoomas!:D That’ll keep the boys from wandering too far...”)

Elaine Morgan (see my earlier comment on this thread) says: “Bullshit! You’ve got it arse-backwards!” (Actually, she uses more refined language. But she is rather scathing about this Tarzanist argument.) “Human females don’t have large breasts because human males find them sexy: Human males find large breasts sexy because human females have them.” (In case you’re wondering, human females grew large breasts for an entirely different interest-group... their children. And it was a case – as all evolutionary changes – of increasing the chances of survival of the genes of the ones with that mutation. How and why? Read the book: it’s fascinating!)

Coming back to the book's penis squeegee theory. If it is correct, wouldn’t this imply that the last male to deposit his offering becomes the most likely to father the future child (and pass his genes on to future generations)?

But I would guess (I have a right to propose my own whacko theories, don’t I?) that the last male tdho is precisely the champion wimp, the furthest from alpha, the least aggressive, the milquetoast who has to wait until the tough guys have all had their shot. Or maybe he’s the strong, silent type, polite to a fault, who allows less well-mannered bozos to jump the queue? So the genes that would predominate among today’s humans would be either those of the unaggressive wimp or those of the principled, polite, generous pacifist.

Or maybe they’re the genes of a multi-orgasmic stud:cool: who - after making his contribution to all of the females in the group - was still up for another round, when all the other males were already snoring or lounging around the campfire, inhaling the post-coital smoke of a burning weed. (So he was #1 and #7 for several females.)

Looking around at the great majority of my species (and – in the case of the last option - judging from what I've read) I rather doubt it...
 
It therefore seems quite plausible to me that if I were to slip my erect penis into a vagina that had just received a delivery of another man’s ejaculate, I would actually be pushing some of it (perhaps even most of it) even further inwards. So far in fact (ahead of the head, so to speak) that my penis couldn’t hope to scoop it back out on subsequent thrusts.

Plausibility arguments such as this are interesting, but they aren't data. The coronal ridge doesn't have to scoop out ALL the competing sperm, just some of it, to be evolutionarily advantageous.

Take a look at the shape of the vagina. It flares out just before it meets the cervix. And that area enlarges even more during sex, just before she has an orgasm. So a penis that could squeegie into that area, let the sperm settle to the bottom under his coronal ridge, and then scoop out from that area would be just dandy for him.

I believe that elsewhere in the book they discuss an actual experiment which gathered actual data, in which grad students used penis-approximating cylinders of various shapes to attempt to pump out sugar water (or something) from a vagina-approximating tube. They found that the dildos with coronal ridges were greatly more efficient at the job.

Sounds like a fun experiment. One kind of wonders whether maybe, just maybe, the penis-approximants and vagina-approximants weren't approximants at all. That would have been much more fun.

I respectfully submit that this theory that penis #6 has squeegeed out a determinant amount of its rivals’ offerings doesn’t really hold water. Or other fluids.

Theories stand or fall on data, not plausibility.

Coming back to the book's penis squeegee theory. If it is correct, wouldn’t this imply that the last male to deposit his offering becomes the most likely to father the future child (and pass his genes on to future generations)?

Not necessarily, especially if it is not a complete scooping, which it certainly is not. And also especially if previous sperm have already made it into the cervix where the penis can't reach. The scooping only has to incrementally increase his chances of being the baby-maker; it doesn't have to make it certain or most likely.
 
Last edited:
Coming back to the book's penis squeegee theory. If it is correct, wouldn’t this imply that the last male to deposit his offering becomes the most likely to father the future child (and pass his genes on to future generations)?

I would guess it's more of an "equaliser" thing? The first one has the benefit of going first (and some semen will get there) and might impregnate her first. The ones who come after try to scoop some out to compete more effectively. In the end, the first one gets more of his think scooped out because all the males after him contributed to that, but he was there first, and if she got pregnant after him (well, if there was enough time I guess) then the others won't have a chance.

It's possible that there is still a screening process anyway, that is, that the woman still refuses weak men. So the weaker men wouldn't be the ones who go last, they wouldn't get a turn at all. The others would be either #1 or #7 or anything in between depending on which woman they decided to go for and how many other guys made the same decision.

And in my opinion, they'd go for more than one woman. After their orgasm, they'd be surrounded by other people having sex, and I think that would get them horny again faster than if there was no sex occurring.
 
From another thread, explaining one theory from this book:I've got to admit to the shameful fact:eek: that I've never actually had sex with a woman right after another man has. So I can’t speak from personal experience of shifting another man’s sperm with the head of my penis.

Well good for you for using condoms! ;)
... push a bean far up your nose with your finger... Now try to hook it out again with that same finger....doctors stand by with an instrument rather like a crochet needle to use on the children

Your analogy fails because a finger is smooth and the dr's tool is a hook. The penis has that coronal ridge, similar to the dr's hook, you see. And it's a liquid we're talking about scooping back out, not a small solid bean.


The Desmond Morris (“Tarzanist”) school of evolutionists reasons thus:
a) Our female primate ancestors (and our present-day female primate “cousins”) have flat chests.
b) Human males find large breasts sexually attractive (when it’s human females who wear them).
c) Human females (generally) have (more or less) large breasts. (Larger than most men’s anyway.)
d) The obvious inference is that female proto-humans evolved large breasts in order to sexually attract proto-human males.
e) This evolution probably occured when the males began to hunt and the females to become gardeners. Hunting was so much fun (and the males so resented being told to eat up all their cabbage:mad:) that the females needed to invent an attraction to get the men to return to the fixed-abode females:confused:. (“Hey! Let’s grow bazoomas!:D That’ll keep the boys from wandering too far...”)

You lost me with (e). The theory i heard was that women grew breasts because of the introduction of missionary style coitus, and the breasts mimick the buttocks. Sex at Dawn says in bonobo culture, the females prefer missionary style while the male prefer doggie fashion. Bonobos gaze into each others' eyes during sex play, as humans do (while other apes do not).

human females grew large breasts for an entirely different interest-group... their children.

Why would babies prefer large breasts? They love mama's boobies no matter the size. Not all women have large breasts, there are many Acups and Bcups out there, and they all provide milk perfectly.
 
It's possible that there is still a screening process anyway, that is, that the woman still refuses weak men. So the weaker men wouldn't be the ones who go last, they wouldn't get a turn at all. The others would be either #1 or #7 or anything in between depending on which woman they decided to go for and how many other guys made the same decision.

According to Sex at Dawn, one of the beauties of a "promiscuous" ape/human society is that even the lesser males have a chance at sex, since there is more a free for all feeling, not as much of a trend for only alpha males to get all the sex. All the males get a chance at having sex. Weak, premature or deformed babies can result, but would die at birth or soon afterward (or be victims of infanticide in human societies).

And in my opinion, they'd go for more than one woman. After their orgasm, they'd be surrounded by other people having sex, and I think that would get them horny again faster than if there was no sex occurring.

Yes, that is a theory presented in Sex at Dawn, and they cite the extreme popularity of gangbang and cuckolding porn as evidence in human culture.
 
You lost me with (e). The theory i heard was that women grew breasts because of the introduction of missionary style coitus, and the breasts mimick the buttocks. Sex at Dawn says in bonobo culture, the females prefer missionary style while the male prefer doggie fashion. Bonobos gaze into each others' eyes during sex play, as humans do (while other apes do not).
Yaaaas, this is a theory that Morgan debunks as well. (I ought to state here that I'm not saying that Mogan has to be right: Morris theorises, Morgan theorises. It's just that I, personally, find Morgan's theories better thought out and more believable. I think that it's a shame that they aren't given more attention than they are. [You have to remember that all the "Tarzanists" - the ones who wrote books on the subject - were/are accredited professional evolutionists. Morgan was primarily a journalist and writer for television. So her theories came up against an elitist clique mentality: "Who does this amateur think she is, anyway?!"])

Why would babies prefer large breasts? They love mama's boobies no matter the size. Not all women have large breasts, there are many Acups and Bcups out there, and they all provide milk perfectly.
OK, you've challenged me on this, so I'm going to go into it in more detail. You have yourself (as well as me) to blame:


From here on, to save trouble, I use the word "man" to also mean "man's ancestors".

1) Tarzanists: "In order to hunt, man had to run. Running with all that hair was hot work! So he got rid of it. That's why man is 'The Naked Ape'. However, at night the temperature really dropped! Early man didn't have insulated houses. So - to keep himself warm at night - he developed a 'blanket' of fat: excellent insulation!"

Morgan: RIDICULOUS! What's the fastest running mammal? The cheetah. Has a cheetah shed her hair to keep cool while running?
+ What's the blooming point of shedding your hair for the sake of keeping cool on the hunt, while - at the same time - putting on a layer of fat to keep you warm at night??? A layer of fat that not only is going to be a LOT more uncomfortably hot while running than any amount of hair would be, but also is going to slow you down with all the extra kilos. Back to the cheetah: not a gram of useless fat on her.
Soooo... What kind of mammal has shed their hair (as being useless and - even more - an actual disadvantage) as well as putting on a layer of fat to keep warm (not only at night but at all times)? :confused:Hmmm: whales, dolphins, seals, manatees... You get the picture? In the water, being covered in hair is worse than useless, while - for warm-blooded mammals - a layer of fat is practically essential.

2) Morgan: This theory about fatty breasts being substitutes for fatty bums to keep the male interested in sex in the "missionary position" - evolution is a process that takes thousands of years. If a male didn't like the "m.p." because he couldn't see that arse:mad:, the female didn't have time to grow breasts to keep him on the job. Male primates are generally bigger and stronger than their females. If caveman really wanted to see arse, he would have snarled and flipped her over, "You'll do it my way and like it!!!"

Added to that: just take a look at a chimpanzee's arse. Or a gorilla's. No fat for future breasts to mimic! The fat was getting deposited on the body at the same time. Some body parts got more than others. Why? Read on...

3) Evolution doesn't "just happen". You have to keep in mind that the first step in an evolutionary change is a mutation from the norm: an aberration... in fact – from the point of view of unmutated members of the species (at the very beginning of the process, the great majority) – a deformity. It is only when this deformity causes its “sufferers” (or their children) to have a better chance of surviving (or having more children than the neighbours) that it stands any chance of becoming the norm – over a period of tens of thousands of years in the human race, though flies in a laboratory can be evolved at the will of the scientists within a few months. (The Nazis also carried out an attempt at controlled, speeded-up evolution to create their Master Race by the killing or forced sterilisation of “defectives”.)

4) So, to get back to your question, "Why would babies prefer large breasts? They love mama's boobies no matter the size." No question about it: They do! (Me too!:D) It's not that babies prefer big breasts (or ever did): it's that at a crucial time in our prehistory, the children of larg(er)-breasted women had a better chance of survival... or perhaps an artist's role in their development.

Imagine this time when the evolving humans were living a semi-aquatic life, sitting around on stony beaches. (Very interesting aside here: this explains the "missing link": ocean waves would have pulverised any skeletons left behind in this period. Carcasses would have been eaten by crabs or washed out to sea and been devoured by fish.) Fat is - over thousands of years - building up on men and women. Those who chance to put an extra bit on the butt sat more comfortably on the rocks. Comfort leads to health leads to less sickness leads to longer life leads to more children leads to a bigger percentage of the gene pool.

Remember the concurrent loss of body hair? Let's go back and look at the hairy apes. Have you seen a picture of a baby ape suckling? What are its fingers doing? Right! They're entwined in mama's body hair holding on. Loosening hold means slipping off the tit more often means cranky babies means colicky babies means weaker children means more infant mortality and weaker resulting adults who died earlier. Now let's return to the beach and our "naked apes": What's baby to hang onto? The hair's fast disappearing (fast = thousands of years). Those mutant mothers who put on a little extra fat around the nipples ("We're putting on fat anyway: why not a bit extra here?") had happier, better-fed, healthier children... less infant mortality, healthier adults who lived longer, had more children, and a bigger percentage in the gene pool.

It's not inconceivable that the babies, tugging at the tit while fat was deciding where to deposit itself, acted as "body sculptors" as well.

This is a whole book I'm talking about and I'm only dealing with a few details. Morgan does an excellent job of weaving it all together. Consider the fact that I haven't had my hands on a copy of this book for decades! I'm paraphrasing from memory. That's the impression it left on me. Why do we squint? Why do we have protruding noses and not 2 holes in a flat face like other apes? (The proboscis monkey - which spends a good deal of time in water - is another exception to the rule.) Why do we have webbing between our fingers and toes instead of loooong separations that would be much more useful for almost any kind of work? (Clue: except for swimming!) Why does women's hair get thicker and stronger during pregnancy? (And - in line with that last question - why does MrFarFromRight refuse to shave off his unsightly beard {or at least keep it trim}? [Because he loves babies!])

As I wrote earlier, if you're interested in the theories of "Sex At Dawn" [and I do want to read it: my last post was rather tongue-in-cheek], I think that you'll be fascinated by "The Descent Of Woman".
 
To forestall possible commentary:
You have to remember that all the "Tarzanists" - the ones who wrote books on the subject - were/are accredited professional evolutionists. Morgan was primarily a journalist and writer for television.
A professional journalist who knew how to research her material thoroughly... and wrote in an easy-to-follow style for the lay reader.
 
To forestall possible commentary:A professional journalist who knew how to research her material thoroughly... and wrote in an easy-to-follow style for the lay reader.

It is the case that a lay person can successfully refute common wisdom in a professional domain, but it is rarer in the scientific realms than other professions. Having a Ph.D. doesn't make you right. But, it does ensure a certain level of rigor in both developing knowledge in the field and an ability to contribute knowledge to that field.

I wouldn't dismiss a lay point of view out of hand. But, alternative theories need primary research to move into a position to topple the accepted theoretical framework in a field. The goal is not to come up with something plausible but provide a theory that's probable based on the evidence (the goal of primary research).

I haven't read Morgan's theory, but is more often than not the case that a professional journalist work does not meet the same standards of evidence as a professional researcher must meet when publishing scientific work.
 
It is the case that a lay person can successfully refute common wisdom in a professional domain, but it is rarer in the scientific realms than other professions. Having a Ph.D. doesn't make you right. But, it does ensure a certain level of rigor in both developing knowledge in the field and an ability to contribute knowledge to that field.

I wouldn't dismiss a lay point of view out of hand. But, alternative theories need primary research to move into a position to topple the accepted theoretical framework in a field. The goal is not to come up with something plausible but provide a theory that's probable based on the evidence (the goal of primary research).

I haven't read Morgan's theory, but is more often than not the case that a professional journalist work does not meet the same standards of evidence as a professional researcher must meet when publishing scientific work.
If you look at the link I gave in my first comment - oh hell: I'll save you the bother of looking for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Morgan_(writer) - you'll find (among other stuff):
Morgan first became drawn into scientific writing when reading popularizers of the savannah hypothesis of human evolution such as Desmond Morris. She described her reaction as one of irritation because the explanations were largely male-centered. For instance, she thought that if humans lost their hair because they needed to sweat while chasing game on the savannah that did not explain why women should also lose their hair as, according to the savannah hypothesis, they would be looking after the children. On re-reading Desmond Morris's The Naked Ape she encountered a reference to a hypothesis that humans had for a time gone through a water phase, the so-called aquatic ape hypothesis. She contacted Morris on this and he directed her to Alister Hardy. Her first book The Descent of Woman (1972) was originally planned to pave the way for Hardy's more academic book, but Hardy never published his book. Morgan's first publication was mentioned by E. O. Wilson in 1975, comparing it to other 'advocacy approaches' such as The Imperial Animal[8] as an 'inevitable feminist' counter, but describing the method as less scientific than other contemporary hypotheses.[9] She accepted this criticism and so her later books were written on more scientific basis or more "po-faced" as she herself described it. As an outsider and a non-scientist she claims to have encountered hostility from academics. Consequently many of her books seem to be written as much to counter the many arguments put forth against the Aquatic Ape Theory as to advance its merits. Her position is summarised in her website.[10] The story of Morgan's quest to have the aquatic ape hypothesis taken seriously was chronicled in the 1998 BBC documentary "The Aquatic Ape".

Morgan's version of the AAH has achieved much popular appeal,[citation needed] but has never achieved significant acceptance or serious scrutiny within the scholarly community.[11][12][13] Despite this, Morgan continues to promote the theory, with invitations to speak at universities[14][14] and symposia[15] including a TED talk in 2009.[16]
So it was Morris who pointed her towards Hardy (although he himself didn't accept Hardy's theory.)

Hardy was a scientist (a zoologist) and if you use the link off that first link, you can read about him:
In 1930, while reading Wood Jones' Man's Place among the Mammals, which included the question of why humans, unlike all other land mammals, had fat attached to their skin, Hardy realized that this trait sounded like the blubber of marine mammals, and began to suspect that humans had ancestors that were more aquatic than previously imagined. Fearing the backlash of such a radically different idea, he kept this hypothesis secret until 1960, when he spoke, and later wrote, on the subject, which subsequently became known as the aquatic ape hypothesis in academic circles.
The underlining is mine. Radically new scientific theories always have a tough time in challenging established ideas. Purely on a commercial basis, if Hardy's (and Morgan's) aquatic hypothesis became the accepted standard, Morris' "The Naked Ape" - published in 1967 and probably still the most famous (and best-selling) book for the lay reader on evolution theory - would be relegated to a literary backwater. On a professional pride level, Morris and those who have pooh-poohed the aquatic theory would be left with egg on their faces.

How's this for an quote?
After graduating, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post, but a former classmate's father helped him secure a job in Bern, at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property, the patent office, as an assistant examiner.[28] He evaluated patent applications for electromagnetic devices. In 1903, Einstein's position at the Swiss Patent Office became permanent, although he was passed over for promotion until he "fully mastered machine technology".
It was while Einstein was working in that patent office [let's repeat this: having been disregarded by the scientific powers-that-be] that he did the work that later won him the Nobel Physics Prize. (Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't for his more famous Theory Of Relativity.)

Please don't let's allow this thread (originally about "Sex At Dawn") to be further highjacked into a discussion of Einstein!

The point that I originally wanted to make was that - no matter how widely-accepted, no matter how scientific-hierarchically approved, no matter how appealing to the lay reader - a hypothesis is a hypothesis. "Sex At Dawn" and "The Descent Of Woman" may both be - for all we know - spot-on in their theories... or both a load of populist bunk.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice.
 
The goal is not to come up with something plausible but provide a theory that's probable based on the evidence (the goal of primary research).
So where's the "rigor" or the "evidence" to assert that female proto-humans developed fatty breasts to mimic their buttocks, so that male would accept sex at the front??? That one was advanced by a qualified scientist! As well as the one about losing hair for coolness and putting on fat for nighttime warmth. How many humans do you know who can unzip their layer of fat to go hunting in the hot sun? (I know that there are thousands who wish that they could!)

I haven't read Morgan's theory, but is more often than not the case that a professional journalist work does not meet the same standards of evidence as a professional researcher must meet when publishing scientific work.
So, read it! [That's what I've been advising all along.] And then come back and tell me how it falls short in scientific rigor...
 
And you are missing the point.

Einstein's theories WERE controversial until (a) he was able to prove that they were mathematically consistent. He needed to develop the mathematical "proof" which he did about the same time as a mathematician completed the proof. And (b) his theories were further reinforced through direct observation (specifically, star light bending around a solar eclipse). There were many teams of astronomers trying to be the first to prove or disprove Einstein's theory with this test. But, they were very controversial until those two things happened - many years after he published his three foundational papers.

Extra-ordinary claims require evidence. Any theory that's inconsistent with prevailing theories are going to be considered radical.

I'm not familiar with the science. So, I can't tell you the evidence for any of the theories.

My point was quite simply that scientific process is based on finding evidence for theories. Theories that can not be tested with evidence (even if circumstantial) are philosophy not science.

I'm neither trying to refute her claims nor reinforce the prevailing paradigm. What I am saying is that there are good, useful and valid reasons why a lay person's theory doesn't get traction in the scientific community.
 
Last edited:
The point that I originally wanted to make was that - no matter how widely-accepted, no matter how scientific-hierarchically approved, no matter how appealing to the lay reader - a hypothesis is a hypothesis. "Sex At Dawn" and "The Descent Of Woman" may both be - for all we know - spot-on in their theories... or both a load of populist bunk.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice.

The scientist would probably say that not all hypothesis are equal. It's not a crap shoot. It is, however, an empirical question. Every scientific hypothesis should be tested to see if it is consistent with the data. As we get more data, there's more inconsistencies discovered in current dominant theories. At some point, alternative hypotheses will be adopted that can explain a larger proportion of the available data. Thus, marches science forward.

It ain't perfect. But, it is the best we know how to uncover truth.

It is true that every scientific theory, hypothesis and proposition are held to scientific rigor and therefore have some chance of being proven false or incomplete. But, that's very different from saying that they all have an equal chance of being true, which is far from the case.
 
Last edited:
And, now I feel compelled to tie this all back to the original topic. What Ryan and Jetha have done is to
(a) provide alternative theory to explain current data,
(b) suggest current data is partially corrupted by experimental contact (ex., chimps were made more aggressive than natural because of using feeding to make the chimps easier to study),
(c) widen the pool of data that isn't being considered or is under-weighted (ex., the bonobo as equally appropriate as a subject of comparative biology as the the chimps), and
(d) presenting additional testable propositions (specifically with respect to immediate return hunter gatherers).

From my point of view, it was impressive in covering so many of the basis that lead to breaking down a set of theoretical assumptions.

Is it a better theory than the so-called standard narrative? The answer to that question has to play out as people compare the current evidence, develop new ways to test the theory, and see if it compares favorably against the current paradigm.

I enjoyed the book because it is, in part, a well founded and expertly argued scientific critique and, in part, just very good story telling.
 
To me there's a lot more said in this book than the title - or all the commentary - completely captures.

What struck me (and I think this was even quite literally mentioned in a place or two) is that the ramifications of this are a culture wide concern.

It's not about "sex" per se.
It's not about "love" (poly, mono or otherwise)

It's about those pieces of the lives of a very social and fragile species.

Many thinkers and authors have have bemoaned the fall of the 'tribal' lifestyle. There's been much written about the fact that we humans do not fare well in very large groups. We don't fare well when we become disconnected from 'nature' - the natural world around us. We cannot substitute money and physical possessions for a warm breeze, a cool drink or a sweet fruit.
Preferably in the company of our tribe that we can share all this with.
That we can depend on each other for.

"Sex" is only a small part of this and the meaning of the term "love" is subtly woven through this existence.

To me, Ryan and Jetha are trying to impress this point.

We have - and are continuing to - lose/lost a lot ! But 'nature' has it's way of establishing balance. As it guides us carefully towards our own destruction.

GS
 
Yes, we have been losing, and have lost, a lot. Especially in "advanced" (capitalist-industrial modern) society, which commodifies nearly everything.

From - http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2010/08/sex-at-dawn-and-polyamory-movement.html :

"...Of course, one of the big unanswered questions is why is jealousy such a powerful emotion, especially if monogamy was never meant to be such a big deal, and paternity certainty isn't as paramount as we at first thought. The standard evolutionary explanation holds that jealousy helps to ensure paternity certainty — making a man more sure about whether a child who emerges from a new mother's loins is his own. But Ryan argues this is a cultural construct with an economic justification. In its basic form, he says, jealousy is just fear of losing something that seems essential. "If you look at sexuality as a commodity — as it is now and has been for 10,000 years, more or less — it makes perfect sense that people are very afraid of losing it, because like all other commodities, it exists in the context of scarcity," he says. "So we fear losing our lover or relationship because we can't imagine ever replacing that feeling that we get from that person — that feeling of security, that feeling of intimacy. "If you imagine a society in which sexual pleasure — and intimacy and companionship and help with the kids and all the rest of it — was not a commodity and was not a scarce commodity, then people wouldn't be scared of losing it."..."


Edit:

Is it not obvious that the taboo on non-monogamy ("enforced monogamy") actually creates crucial conditions of scarcity in the love-sex domain? If we overtrow this cultural norm, we likely won't have so much of that addictive seeking after surrugate needs (as I like to call them). Examples of "surrogate needs" are consumerism / materialism and status-seeking--which addictive pursuits not only tend to erode the quality of our relationships with one another, but with all of life (as in environmental, ecological destruction). I see the modern world as a vast surrogate needs machine fueld by (a) being out of touch with our real needs and (b) seeking instead the culture's advertised and sanctioned pseudo needs and wants. Mainstream American culture (for exampe) needs us to devote ourselves to pseudo needs and pseudo lives, in which we are chronically unfulfilled. Our insatiable desire is its main product, with which it hopes to grow the GDP into the stratosphere. Gawd forbid that people should find greater satisfaction leading materially simple lives focussed on quality relationships and non-consumptive pleasures!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top