#81
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
|
#82
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
Me: bi female in my twenties Dating: Moonlightrunner Metamour: Windflower |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley Mags (poly, F, 62) Pixi (poly, F, 40) my partner since January 2009 Kahlo (poly-curious, M, 45) my bf since August 2017 Master, (mono, M, 36), Pixi's Dom/bf since April 2013 |
#84
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]()
__________________
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From another thread, explaining one theory from this book:
Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 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 ![]() 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 ![]() ![]() ![]() 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 ![]() 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... |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Ready2Fly; 04-12-2011 at 12:05 PM. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#88
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley Mags (poly, F, 62) Pixi (poly, F, 40) my partner since January 2009 Kahlo (poly-curious, M, 45) my bf since August 2017 Master, (mono, M, 36), Pixi's Dom/bf since April 2013 |
#89
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley Mags (poly, F, 62) Pixi (poly, F, 40) my partner since January 2009 Kahlo (poly-curious, M, 45) my bf since August 2017 Master, (mono, M, 36), Pixi's Dom/bf since April 2013 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
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)? ![]() 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 ![]() 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! ![]() 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". |
![]() |
Tags |
bonobos, boobs, books, breastfeeding, chimps, evolution, history, mono poly, mono/poly, monogamy, non-monogamy, reading, sex at dawn, tribal sex customs |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|