Book: Sex at Dawn

[redpepper]

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.

[BlackUnicorn]

Originally Posted by redpepper

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.

[Magdlyn]

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.

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by BlackUnicorn

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.

[MrFarFromRight]

From another thread, explaining one theory from this book:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

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.

I've got to admit to the shameful fact 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, 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. 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) that the females needed to invent an attraction to get the men to return to the fixed-abode females. (“Hey! Let’s grow bazoomas! 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 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...

[Ready2Fly]

Originally Posted by MrFarFromRight

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.

[Tonberry]

Originally Posted by MrFarFromRight

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.

[Magdlyn]

Originally Posted by MrFarFromRight

From another thread, explaining one theory from this book:I've got to admit to the shameful fact 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) that the females needed to invent an attraction to get the men to return to the fixed-abode females. (“Hey! Let’s grow bazoomas! 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.

[Magdlyn]

Originally Posted by Tonberry

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.

[MrFarFromRight]

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

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?!"])

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

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)? 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, 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!) 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".