Page 10 of 13 [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

01 Feb 2014, 3:41 pm

Christopher Ryans book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... rpunchmaga

And, a brief synopsis: http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/08/19/ ... rehistory/

Quote:
...But back to Ryan and Jethá’s thesis: homo sapiens (that’s us) did not evolve in monogamous, Flintstonesque, nuclear families, with or without the white picket fences, as so many people, corporations and institutions in the “Marital Industrial Complex”—from couples counselors to congressmen, religious preachers to science teachers—preach and teach. Rather, we evolved in 20-150 person hunter-gatherer groups in which nobody owned property (nor much of anything at all), and normal adults would have been engaged in multiple ongoing sexual relationships with different group members at any given time, quite like our closest living relatives: common chimps and bonobos.

Why is the sexuality of our ancestors some 100,000-200,000 years ago such a huge deal to us now—even to those of us who don’t care about history, let alone prehistory? Because the human body (featuring, of course, the human brain inside that body) evolved under these prehistoric conditions to be, essentially, what it is today: a highly social, communicative and very sexy beast....



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

01 Feb 2014, 8:41 pm

By the by, as Christopher Ryan's book Sex at Dawn seems to have raised the ire of evolutionary psychologists and other individuals who have a vested interest in the standard narrative concerning human sexuality, you can get one book-length rebuttal here:

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dusk-Lifting- ... 1477697284

which is summarized here:

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/upl ... 611616.pdf

The rebuttal book tended to get somewhat poor reviews on Amazon. One reviewer, who liked the rebuttal book, wrote:

Quote:
Sex at Dawn, what a shame! Our teacher for an Anthropology course made us read the popular Sex at Dawn and the underrated Sex at Dusk. What a fantastic experience. Sex at Dawn is an easy read with funny lines but lacks the hard science that Sex at Dusk provides. Reading both books made me realize that you cannot take any data at face value even if that info comes from accredited academics.


An excellent point there.



Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 164
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

01 Feb 2014, 9:41 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Briefly, among gregarious non-human primates where multiple males and females live together in the same group, none practice monogamy. And, the interviewee mentions that human hunter-gatherer tribes are promiscuous. If you can bang any tribe member you want, and if no one tribe member has exclusive sexual rights over another tribe member, then acts that came to be recognized as sex crimes (viz. rape and adultery) with the advent of agriculture would have had no meaning.


I'm having a hard time following this logic. Because everyone acted like whores, this suddenly means women don't care when men FORCE sex upon them?

Quote:
I wasn't planning on boning orangutans or Sunday-school teachers, but neither have I had the honor of meeting any hunter-gatherer folk.


See, that's just the kicker: Our ability to derive knowledge about our hunter-gatherer ancestors is limited because they're all dead, and the vanishingly few extant hunter-gatherers might not be reliable analogues.

Quote:
Both harems AND promiscuity?


And most likely monogamy as well. Monogamous species also tend to have smaller testicles, I forgot to mention that. All three strategies were quite possibly present throughout our evolutionary history. The reality is that we might not ever know.

ArrantPariah wrote:
A bunch of books and not scientific articles from the primary literature.


I could care less what a bunch of s**t that isn't peer-reviewed says. The last one's a start.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

01 Feb 2014, 10:04 pm

Shau wrote:
I'm having a hard time following this logic. Because everyone acted like whores, this suddenly means women don't care when men FORCE sex upon them?


No. If they were all acting like bonobos (maybe they weren't, but if they were) then they wouldn't have been acting like whores (i.e., receiving payment or other favors in exchange for sex), but just freely enjoying coitus with anyone who happened by, then rape probably wouldn't have been regarded as any great tragedy.

Shau wrote:

See, that's just the kicker: Our ability to derive knowledge about our hunter-gatherer ancestors is limited because they're all dead, and the vanishingly few extant hunter-gatherers might not be reliable analogues.


Good point.

Shau wrote:
I could care less what a bunch of sh** that isn't peer-reviewed says. The last one's a start.


That last one, although peer-reviewed, was just a review of the book that was written to rebut Sex at Dawn. So, Sex at Dawn is obviously getting the big-shots who right peer-reviewed articles a bit anxious.



Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 164
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

01 Feb 2014, 10:13 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
...but just freely enjoying coitus with anyone who happened by...


Well, that's what I meant. I'm not known for being very delicate, sorry for the confusion.

Quote:
...then rape probably wouldn't have been regarded as any great tragedy.


Unless you can demonstrate that the rather devastating reactions to rape women have are entirely socially-constructed, this argument has no basis. As it were, given the body of scientific evidence that we have, I'm more inclined to believe that throughout human evolution, our ancestors used a variety of strategies, possibly concurrently.

Quote:
That last one, although peer-reviewed, was just a review of the book that was written to rebut Sex at Dawn. So, Sex at Dawn is obviously getting the big-shots who right peer-reviewed articles a bit anxious.


Admittedly, it seems as if most anthropologists these days are obsessed with a monogamy-only hypothesis. However, even the big bang theory, when it was still MOCKINGLY known as such, had a small but core and dedicated element in academia that eventually won out. If there's any credibility to your ideas, chances are there's at least a half dozen or so academics out there who have a body of evidence for you to present in this thread to support any ideas you might have about whatever.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

02 Feb 2014, 12:26 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(law)

Well..considering that about 41% of births happen out of wedlock..

It is somewhat shaky ground to suggest that humans are monogamous...now..

But seriously..it is a mix of both..with culture playing a large role..NOW everywhere..

Interestingly..though..since birth control .. per the pill starting in 1960 ..the free loving 60's eventually
turned into the religious 90's to 2000..'the day of the conservative'...

But..birth control is known as an influencing factor for the mating habits of humans..
with women more likely to select the breadwinner..than the 'bedding maker'..'while under
the influence' of the pill..

But as far as free sex goes..rape is unwanted forced sex..
there is no desirable rape..
that's technically an oxymoron..

It was either consensual sex..
or forced sex..
and no.. women do not like forced sex..
It doesn't matter what a person wants to symbolize IT with in words..

But in general the actual sex act between sexually dimorphic species is not always
what ya might call an 'act of love'..

It can even be downright brutal..for non sexually dimorphic species..like cats...2
who are pillaged by more than one cat..at a time..
And those barbed penises..can't be a joy ride..either..i would GUESS..
But it works..
to get the job done..

Humans tend to romanticize stuff..
that ain't always sugar and spice..
puppy dog tails..are part of the story too..
and some fairly brutal stuff..to get the job done..

It ain't easy being a female...overall in most SOCIAL animal species..
But it is much better than ever before..
in our current day..for hu mans...
where women do have reproductive freedom..more than
ever before in history...

Particularly the LEGAL RIGHT TO SAY
NO!


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

02 Feb 2014, 9:12 am

Another article by Christopher Ryan (he has a PhD, so that means that he is smart).

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex ... ve-and-sex


Quote:
....As the great primatologist, Frans de Waal put it, "Chimps use violence to get sex, while bonobos use sex to avoid violence." While chimps victimize each other in many ways—rape, murder, infanticide, warfare between groups—there's never been a single observed case of any of these forms of aggression among bonobos, who are much sexier than chimps. As James Prescott demonstrated in a meta-analysis of all available anthropological data, the connection between less restrictive sexuality and less conflict generally holds true for human societies as well.....


Presently, with our restrictive sexuality, we are much more like chimpanzees than bonobos. But, perhaps, 100,000-200,000 years ago, our ancestors were more like bonobos.

Either way: the right for a woman to decline coitus is socially constructed.



Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 164
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

02 Feb 2014, 11:23 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
Another article by Christopher Ryan (he has a PhD, so that means that he is smart).

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex ... ve-and-sex


While I don't disagree with what this guy is saying, having a Ph.D doesn't mean s**t. You can have a fancy doctorate all day and say whatever you want in some pop psyche website, at the end of the day, pop psyche websites are not peer reviewed. I'd take the word of a guy with a BSc in a peer-reviewed article over anything said in any pop psyche article any day.

Quote:
Presently, with our restrictive sexuality, we are much more like chimpanzees than bonobos. But, perhaps, 100,000-200,000 years ago, our ancestors were more like bonobos.


Quite possibly.

Quote:
Either way: the right for a woman to decline coitus is socially constructed.


Non sequitur. Nothing you have said supports this conclusion. Being less-restrictive sexually is not the same as being incapable of not wanting a sexual advance.

I would never, ever, ever leave any woman alone with a person who believes this, especially with such a nonsensical argument. I quietly wonder how many women you have molested in your many days. Let's hope none.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

02 Feb 2014, 9:42 pm

Shau wrote:
Quote:
Either way: the right for a woman to decline coitus is socially constructed.


Non sequitur. Nothing you have said supports this conclusion. Being less-restrictive sexually is not the same as being incapable of not wanting a sexual advance.

I would never, ever, ever leave any woman alone with a person who believes this, especially with such a nonsensical argument. I quietly wonder how many women you have molested in your many days. Let's hope none.
[/quote]

Of course none. I'm a nonviolent chap. Moreover, I don't want to get beaten up or imprisoned.

But, ancient law codes:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tVeh3C ... nt&f=false



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

02 Feb 2014, 10:49 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Shau wrote:
Quote:
Either way: the right for a woman to decline coitus is socially constructed.


Non sequitur. Nothing you have said supports this conclusion. Being less-restrictive sexually is not the same as being incapable of not wanting a sexual advance.

I would never, ever, ever leave any woman alone with a person who believes this, especially with such a nonsensical argument. I quietly wonder how many women you have molested in your many days. Let's hope none.


Quote:
Of course none. I'm a nonviolent chap. Moreover, I don't want to get beaten up or imprisoned.

But, ancient law codes:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tVeh3C ... nt&f=false


Yes..it is still a dog rape dog..reality in some cultures..

But that is certainly not to suggest that it is still not rape...

Legalization..of rape..or a cultural sanction of rape..neither excuses the rapist or
the culture from committing..horrifying harm to a woman when considered nothing but property..

And yes this is apparent in the code linked above...a woman while married and raped..was considered worthless..
and put to death..
So obviously the culture only considered her valuable for one thing..in marriage..
cattle to bear the genetic material of the direct sire of child....

And yes..this still goes on..
particularly in Muslim countries..even with female college graduates..fully understanding the freedom of other countries..
they submit to rape..as it is their culture's way to pay for the economically suitable..husband by Dowry..and then the future wife of the unknown husband
must submit..by cultural norm..whether she wants it or not...
So many sacrifice their will..for what culture brainwashes them to do...
But some instead..kill themselves..
Nah..women do not like to be raped..not even when they are brainwashed
to think they have to do it..if they don't want to do it.

Well..at least we do not live in these dark ages any more in the US..
People have the cognitive abilities..to respect other folks desires and wishes..
whether their loins say i would like some or not.

NOW that is a culture that works..
and does not work to harm others..in this way..AGAINST WOMEN...

AND back in the so called cave man days..men and women were not nearly as sexually dimorphic..
ya wouldn't wanna piss one of 'them' women..off..they could kick some serious ass...if they were not
in the mood...the odds were much more even..where will ruled WITH CULTURE overall...
and everyone was as strong as the 'incredible hulk'..in metaphor and analogy.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

03 Feb 2014, 7:32 am

All rights are socially constructed. Rights make no sense outside of a social context.

When a new lion assumes control of a harem, he kills the existing cubs and impregnates the lionesses. Neither the cubs nor the lionesses have any rights.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

03 Feb 2014, 9:11 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
All rights are socially constructed. Rights make no sense outside of a social context.

When a new lion assumes control of a harem, he kills the existing cubs and impregnates the lionesses. Neither the cubs nor the lionesses have any rights.


Of course...morals AND rights are socially constructed...

But social construction..is also a natural process of the human animal..

So i'm not sure what your point is..

We are not Lions..per language..collective intelligence and the natural consequence that comes after that..
Culture..

Perhaps in the grand scheme of life on the planet IT (OVERALL human culture) is a virus in metaphor...

but never the less..rights AND morals ARE NO LESS NATURAL than

your guitar...

or the digital ART in CREATIVITY..IN WORDS..and GUITAR VIDEOS..MADE POSSIBLE
BY YOUR dam Computer...

Can you see the common sense in that..

No thing..IS UN NATURAL..

IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE..OR beyond.

MAN MADE YAH..LIKE A BEAVER MAKES A DAM...

BUT THE ONLY THING THAT SETS HUMANS APART..

INITIALLY..IS COMPLEX SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE..
A PREHENSILE THUMB..WRITTEN LANGUAGE..

AND
THE
REST
IS
HISTORY
AND YES...

YOUR dam GUITAR...:)
computer and all of THAT... THOSE
CULTURAL BYPRODUCTS...
and YES ..ETHICS..MORALS..
AND RIGHTS TOO...
AND OH MY GOD..YES! EVEN JESUS
CHRIST..BUDDHA..MUHAMMAD
AND ALL THOSE YOGI DUDES..
WHOSE ENLIGHTENED CULTURAL AND YES
STILL NATURAL WAYS OF GREATER ENLIGHTENMENT
BRING STRONGER AND BETTER ETHICS..MORALS..HUMAN
ANIMAL RIGHTS..AND OH MY GOD YES2..
EVEN
MORE BLISS!
TO OTHER FOLKS...
and OH MY GOD YES!! !
THIS IS kinda a natural CULTURAL..SOCIALLY
CONSTRUCTED.. mind and body
orgasm.. if ya get my drift!
without all the 'messy stuff'.....
BUT YA SEE..
IT'S STILL NATURAL..
IF YA CAN OR WILL...


And this is like a parable Arrant Pariah..
just to help ya..understand the common sense of this.
i read people fairly well visually .. and looking at
your guitar playing..ya seem like a nice..
but lonely guy...and yah.. in 'that' way too....
and i hope ya are finding some connection here..

whatever it is ya are seeking;)2


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

26 Feb 2014, 8:18 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
People who pay for sex completely disgust me and I would never get into a relationship with one, but the rights of sex workers in this instance are more important than my contempt for their customers.


Why is that, just out of curiosity? Do you also hate people who pay for non-therapeutic massage? Consumers of pornography? Strip club patrons?


Because I don't want to have sex with someone who can have sex with a person who doesn't want to have sex with them for its own sake. I have this standard for myself of not having sex with someone who doesn't desire me or the sex itself. I wouldn't have sex with someone if I'd have to pay for the privilege. I want a partner with the same standards as I have regarding that.

You could say that I should include more people that johns in this, and I do. I like the type of partner who makes sure that their partner definitely wants sex with them and isn't doing it completely for another reason (to get status, security, because they can't say no, etc) but that's always tricky to be 100% sure about, whereas with prostitution, it's clear-cut what they want out of the encounter. I prefer a partner who makes the effort to ensure that sex is mutually desired and pleasurable. It's a big ask, but I've decided to not settle for any less, and I think I've met someone like that.

This standard doesn't apply to porn and strip clubs simply because whilst the sex workers in those areas are doing sexual things purely for money rather than pleasure, they aren't having sex with the people themselves. You could argue that morally, it's the same thing, but there's less personal involvement there than actually sticking your penis into someone. It's like the difference between someone buying consumer goods made in a sweatshop and someone owning a sweatshop - and no I'm not implying prostitution is inherently exploitative like sweatshops are (though it can be) it was just the only analogy that came to mind.


A better analogy is professional psychologists. They are sitting there, listening to people, whom they might or might not like, and listening to problems which might or might not interest them. After 50 minutes, the session ends, and they collect their fee.

Are the services of a psychologist somehow invalid because she is collecting a fee, and is not, with her whole heart, completely consumed with interest in her client's problems?

An executive ejaculatory administrator might or might not like a particular client, but still collects her fee at the conclusion of the session. If she has 10 clients during a day, you can't really expect her to have an orgasm during every session. Any more than you can expect a psychologist to be thoroughly thrilled with each and every client that comes in.

A psychologist's clients have their problems. An executive ejaculatory administrator's clients also have their own problems.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

01 Mar 2014, 8:41 pm

http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2010 ... f-control/

Maggie McNeill wrote:
t’s time for society to recognize the tremendous harm done by sexually frustrated males and to address it not in the judgmental, punitive ways favored by neofeminists, but rather in a compassionate, pragmatic way which recognizes that these men only behave this way due to repression of their natural impulses. It is not possible to legislate a problem out of existence, and the Pollyannaish “just say no” approach ignores the primordial power of the male sex drive, a force so great it was deified by the ancients. Since Western society has apparently decided that it is no longer the responsibility of wives to provide for their husbands’ sexual needs, and since unmarried men have nobody to provide for them in the first place, we need Vestals to tend the fires of male passion in order to keep them from becoming dangerous conflagrations. Fortunately, society already has such priestesses, the daughters of an ancient order going back to the very beginning of human history but long discredited and suppressed by the jealous priests of other orders. All we ask is that politicians, hypocrites and neofeminists step back, stop harassing us, and let us do our jobs.


:salut:



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

01 Mar 2014, 8:54 pm

Please fix that long link, AP. It makes it a real pain to try to read the page when it's stretched like that.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

01 Mar 2014, 9:10 pm

The link words where I am, using Google Chrome.