Monogamy unnatural for our sexy species

[goodsamaritan]

Monogamy unnatural for our sexy species
By Christopher Ryan, Special to CNN
July 29, 2010 -- Updated 1824 GMT (0224 HKT)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

    * Christopher Ryan: True nature of our sexuality silenced by religious authorities, society
    * For 95 percent of our evolution, men and women shared partners, children, Ryan says
    * Ryan: Advent of agriculture brought idea of private property, women as possessions
    * Nonpossessive sexuality is natural, but we can opt to be monogamous, he writes

Editor's note: Christopher Ryan is a psychologist, teacher and the co-author, along with Cacilda Jethá, of "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality," published by Harper Collins.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/27/ryan.promiscuity.normal/index.html?iref=allsearch/#fbid=rST3EHDRr8F&wom=false

[wodgina]

Women shared the alphas. Something like only 40% of males passed on their genes in the human race (80% of women have). Some of the 60% think they passed on their genes.

[Sully]

Women shared the alphas. Something like only 40% of males passed on their genes in the human race (80% of women have). Some of the 60% think they passed on their genes.

Where's this evidence of hunter gatherers doing that? did aborigines or bushmen used to do that?
I know Muslims can have up to five wives.
Do you got a link wodgina? I am interested in how the eskimos and bushmen used to live. It's funny, pretty much no one follows their traditions of hunting and gathering like they used too. Modernization took over.

I wonder how their social lives were.

[Iguana]

Monogamy unnatural for our sexy species. By Christopher Ryan.

Thanks a lot for that, GS: extremely interesting. It looks very close to GCB’s ideas on the subject and corroborates it.

Most foragers divide and distribute meat equitably, breast-feed one another's babies, have little or no privacy from one another, and depend upon each other every day for survival. Although our social world revolves around private property and individual responsibility, theirs spins toward interrelation and mutual dependence. This might sound like New Age idealism, but it's no more noble a system than any other insurance pool. Compulsory sharing is simply the best way to distribute risk to everyone's benefit in a foraging context. Pragmatic? Yes. Noble? Hardly.
(…)
With agriculture, the human female went from occupying a central, respected role to being just another possession for men to accumulate and defend, along with his house, slaves and asses.

The standard narrative posits that paternity certainty has always been of utmost importance to our species, whether expressed as monogamy or harem-based polygyny. Students are taught that our "selfish genes" lead us to organize our sexual lives around assuring paternity, but it wasn't until the shift to agriculture that land, livestock and other forms of wealth could be kept in the family. For the first time in the history of our species, biological paternity became a concern.

Our bodies, minds and sexual habits all reflect a highly sexual primate. Research from primatology, anthropology, anatomy and psychology points to the same conclusion: A nonpossessive, gregarious sexuality was the human norm until the rise of agriculture and private property just 10,000 years ago, about 5 percent of anatomically modern humans' existence on Earth.
(…)
The two primate species closest to us lend strong -- if blush-inducing -- support to this vision. Ovulating female chimps have intercourse dozens of times per day, with most or all of the willing males, and bonobos famously enjoy frequent group sex that leaves everyone relaxed and conflict-free.
(…)
"But we're not apes!" some might insist. But we are, in fact. Homo sapiens is one of four African great apes, along with chimps, bonobos and gorillas.

"OK, but we have the power to choose how to live," comes the reply. This is true. Just as we can choose to be vegans, we can decide to lead sexually monogamous lives.

Christopher Ryan, Ph.D. is a psychologist, teacher, and author. Together with Cacilda Jethá, M.D., he is a co-author of Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality (to be published by HarperCollins in 2010). They live together in Barcelona, Spain.

His PT blog is Sex at Dawn

From the presentation of his book :

Ryan and Jethá show that our ancestors lived in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, often overlooked evidence from anthropology, archeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature sexual monogamy really is. They expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.

[TylerDurden]

I suspect that monogamy is more natural. I mean, infidelity also is natural too, it's just that relationships were mostly monogamous(only very high status alpha males routinely had more than 1 wife).

The Eskimoes had a wonderful system:- they lived in small, far-off, very  isolated communities so their solution to avoid the perils of inbreeding was to routinely offer their wives' sexual favours to any passing strangers who visited.

The best story I ever heard was from Herodotus, but feminists have claimed that it is false. I hope it is true, though. Herodotus claimed that in ancient Babylon, women would go to the temple of the local love-goddess(Ishtar?)  when they wanted to marry. They would have to remain there until one of the men routinely visiting the temple would have sex with them and give them a silver token - possessing that token meant that they would then be allowed to marry. It was also supposed to be a way to prevent inbreeding, like with the Eskimoes, they weren't interested in free love or being swingers or whatever nonsense, they were just being practical.

[Brother]

With 6 billion people on the surface of earth, monogamy may not be natural for our race, but it certainly is sane.

I know Muslims can have up to five wives.

Four wifes. Through the centuries this has become a carte blanche for men to take a wife in every town. It is not a behaviour condoned by the Quran. They forget to reade the clause attached to it. It has got to do with verse 4:3 (surah 4 ayat 3). here is how muslim men and mullahs read the verse.

you may marry two, three, or four (Quran 4:3)

Here is what the whole verse reads.

If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers - you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship. (Quran 4:3)

and

You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging (neither enjoying marriage, nor left to marry someone else). If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. (Quran 4:129)

Ahhhh... now it becomes clear. It applies to a situation in which there are an abundance of of orphans and widows. I suspect it applies to a scenario of post war. And men are encouraged to invite as many of the orphans and widows into their home as they can handle financially, even to marry their mothers if this give the orphans better posabilities (like status which is ALL in a tribal society). It is  made plain obvious by the verse 4;2
   
"You shall hand over to the orphans their rightful properties. Do not substitute the bad for the good, and do not consume their properties by combining them with yours. This would be a gross injustice. "

But all men are warned that it is impossible ("you can never") to be fair to more than one partner nomatter how you twist and turn it.Islam of today is a very sex orientated philosphy. Women are to be covered because men are such lustful animals that we simply cannot control our urges if we see sexy shit like a foot, or en elbow and so.  

(*) In Arabic societies even today, a child without a father (main provider) is called an 'orphan'. This explain why the Quran is talking about orphans with mothers, which is unusual in our part of the hemisphere.

[BakeyMan]

according to the article Polygamy is just as unnatural as monogamy.  Hg's did not marry!  the children were not even raised by their parents, they were raised by the entire group.  and if there were too many children to be looked after... guess what?  they killed them! 

You could even say that individualism is artificial.  In order for Hg's to survive they had to of thought whatever was good for the group was good for them. 

but you could also view neolithic practices as being entirely natural because all of our beliefs are created from nature just as much as anything else on earth.  humans aren't beyond the powers of the universe after all. 

maybe the Neolithic diet was a way to ensure the eventual demise of the human race. haha.

[Sully]

Four wifes. Through the centuries this has become a carte blanche for men to take a wife in every town. It is not a behaviour condoned by the Quran. They forget to reade the clause attached to it. It has got to do with verse 4:3 (surah 4 ayat 3). here is how muslim men and mullahs read the verse.

you may marry two, three, or four (Quran 4:3)

ahh ok, should have got that right since i spent 2 months in jordan, haha 4-5, not much of a difference hah jk

[sabertooth]

Gangus Khan was the ultimate alpha male and legend has it that her sired countless children on his conquest of the world, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5379014/

I believe the reason the utility of monogamy is viewed as virtuous is because it protects the lovers from disease. Vinerial disease must have been so rampant in the ancient neolithic world that it prompted the elders to put tabboes on promiscuity.( perhaps the paleo tribal man had better deffences to VD, than the grain eaters)

If you study some of the alpha male types through history there is allusions to early death and sickness which could be related to VD. Christopher Columbus came to the new world and contracted syphilis from  the natives and brought it back to Europe, he lived the last years of his live a complete retch with all the degenerative symptoms of syphilis, Honest Abraham Lincoln cough it from a prostitute and gave it to Marry Todd who was driven insane from it. Entire legions of the french army under Napoleon would be stricken by it, Hitler caught it from a Jewish Prostitute( it drove him mad along with the mercury that was used to treat the disease; history records how well that worked), Even Thomas Jefferson Died under VD type circumstances. Most venereal decease in the ancient world wouldn't out right kill you, It would linger in the body for years and once the person reached middle age it would ravage the immune system and lead to the shorter lifespan and affliction often attributed to other factors. Chlamydia can go asymptomatic after the initial infection and would take years to sicken you, so the ancients must have been aware of the problem even if they didn't understand the true nature of it. Why do you think Virgins were so valuable to the royal Hiram's (its because that was the only way for a king to know that he would be safe)

Tribal man was a promiscuous animal that didn't have to worry about consequences of casual sex because the tribe would welcome the off spring into the clan and raise it with love, but in neolithic cultures the idea of the bastard child was born, probably a a result of the stratification of society and a erg by the patriarchs to control the women by keeping them from seeking out the strong and viral lovers from the lower class(sexual selfishness)

Property was to be hoarded and passed down on paternal lines and bastard children weren't allowed to benefit from the work of the Man who was cheated by his women's instincts to breed. Its was a deterant to promiscuity, If the mother new that only by mothering the moneymans children could she attain stability then she might submit to having children with a man she has lost sexual interest in.

[goodsamaritan]

The problem with the VD or STD paradigm is I consider myself a pretty good healer and raw paleo diet makes me sort of invulnerable like superman.  You think you got herpes? Syphilis?  Blast em with the beam ray. Finis, end of problem. 

[sabertooth]

I agree the paradigm of VD behind a motivation for monogamy only apples to Neolithic grain eatting populations

The native islanders that spread syphilis to the European conquerors were immune to its devastating effect,

But remember that the societies that built the up the virtues of monogamy were often malnourished grain eaters who were not supper men and were often infested with VD, they had no other preventative other than monogamy

[raw-al]

I suspect that monogamy may have been somehow brought on when we all realized that inbreeding was an issue. Keeping track of who is related to who would be confusing in a group gang bang situation. Indeed maybe that is why the chimps are the way they are, inbreeding. Seriously. They may have started out as higher primates and inbred themselves lower and lower down the evolutionary scale.

When we were in small groups it would be easy to share but on a larger scale it becomes problematic. Except in special cases like when the Inca set up their society under one King a few hundred years before the Spaniards brought disease.

On a personal level I like monogamy.. serial monogamy... LOL just kidding.

I think monogamy comes naturally but there are times when people grow apart. In a small band of people I suspect that a couple would know who they were dealing with prior to setting up shop.

[wodgina]

Monogamy works for Beta males. I think VD isn't as important on RPD, but still, I'm paranoid personally.

[goodsamaritan]

Bringing families together for mutual raising of shared blood descendants is a good deal.
It is done both via monogamy, serial polygamy, concurrent polygamy and because of dna tests today, even without marriage in the formal sense.

[Dwight]

Quite frankly, I can't see myself sharing my wife/wives if I had any.

Herbal cleanses and zappers!

[goodsamaritan]

Quite frankly, I can't see myself sharing my wife/wives if I had any.

Herbal cleanses and zappers!

I'm pretty selfish myself, but there are others who are not.

You haven't read the wife sharing stories and forums on the net?

[Dwight]

I'm pretty selfish myself, but there are others who are not.

You haven't read the wife sharing stories and forums on the net?

No I have not.. My stand on this is pretty clear.

I would only share my wives over my dead body. Also, not a huge fan of seeing another male reproduction organ while copulating with my wives but females on the other hand..the more the merrier!

[Brother]

I suspect that monogamy may have been somehow brought on when we all realized that inbreeding was an issue. Keeping track of who is related to who would be confusing in a group gang bang situation.

This makes a lot of sense. Last names here in Denmark used to tell on your genetic origin. Like the Last names Jensen, Hansen etc.. All the "x-sens" really. It means "Son of Jens", "Son of Hans". In sweden it was common to call the boys by their fathers and daughters by their mothers so a girl would be named something like "Sara Hannasdottir" (Sara Hannas daughter). And in arabic nations they used to have names that included more or less their whole bloodline. My name is brother, In arabia if i had a son he would have an "Ibn" between his and my name. If his name is Michael, then he would be called Michael ibn Brother (Michael, the son of Brother), only they take it to a whole other level since they go several generations back so they have really long names.

[raw-al]

No I have not.. My stand on this is pretty clear.

I would only share my wives over my dead body. Also, not a huge fan of seeing another male reproduction organ while copulating with my wives but females on the other hand..the more the merrier!

How many wives do you have? Or is that just a Freudian slip ?

Your second paragraph I suspect mirrors the thoughts of more than one man.

Its interesting that some have mentioned here that men frequently cheat on their wife. I read a book on the subject called "Why Men Cheat" or something like that. It was a fair treatment of the subject and it said that the main and almost universal reason was that when women for whatever reason, start calling their mate down ie calling him stupid or embarrass him publicly or whatever, (whether deserved or not)  their (the guy) ego (which is generally on some level weak) is weakened and it never really recovers, so when he meets another woman who says very sweet things to him about what a great hero he is, he pulls up anchor from the cold icy wind of the first one and throws a life line to the warm tropical breezes of the second one and says "ahoy matey".

It's a human nature thing. I've seen it in myself and in others. Guys do have a weak ego. Not sure why, just seems to be the nature of the beast. On the other hand women can be very ultra sweet and very ultra cruel without even realizing it. BTW I am not suggesting that either one are right or wrong or bad or good, just making observations. Mark Gungor spells it out correctly and humorously in his videos. I highly recommend them. I think that this is why we are born as women or men, to learn how to overcome our inherent weaknesses and learn to love all without thoughts or being concerned over the other's weaknesses.

But all men are warned that it is impossible to ("you can never") be fair to more than one partner no matter how you twist and turn it. Islam of today is a very sex orientated philosophy. Women are to be covered because men are such lustful animals that we simply cannot control our urges if we see sexy shit like a foot, or en elbow and so. 

(*) In Arabic societies even today, a child without a father (main provider) is called an 'orphan'. This explain why the Quran is talking about orphans with mothers, which is unusual in our part of the hemisphere.

There is a lot of truth in those statements. There will always be some kind of impartiality to one or the other I imagine. Women like to ruminate and plot and are very aware (consciously or not) of what to do to transfer the blood from the man's brain to the ancillary brain.. LOL I cannot imagine what it would be like to have two or five women living in the same house and peed off and therefore plotting against me. Boggles the mind.

I suspect that even covering up women does not change a single thing in regards to guys getting excited in their presence. That's why when you put guys and girls together in a classroom, guys marks plummet and girls do not change at all.

The part about the orphan is one of the sad things about our society. Parentless children or single parent mothers raising children by themselves is a blight on our society. I have no sympathy for a woman who intentionally gets pregnant and has a child without a father presence in the upbringing. Stuff happens in life though which makes for difficult decisions I realize.

[Dwight]

How many wives do you have? Or is that just a Freudian slip ?

Your second paragraph I suspect mirrors the thoughts of more than one man.

Yes. It was a verbal mistake that is thought to reveal a repressed belief, thought, or emotion.

About my second paragraph, I was just saying that there should be no males in the orgy except for me. 

[raw-al]

Yes. It was a verbal mistake that is thought to reveal a repressed belief, thought, or emotion.

About my second paragraph, I was just saying that there should be no males in the orgy except for me. 

ROFLMAO on both replies!!!!!

[Brother]

LOL I cannot imagine what it would be like to have two or five women living in the same house and peed off and therefore plotting against me. Boggles the mind.

Yeah. One can be more than a handful. But ofcourse, if you live in a tribal society, stuff like feminism and equal rights are a laughing stock or completely alien concepts. It is probably more of a herd thing like owning cattle and pretty much the same means are used to keep the flock in right place.

I suspect that even covering up women does not change a single thing in regards to guys getting excited in their presence. That's why when you put guys and girls together in a classroom, guys marks plummet and girls do not change at all.

True. This "discovery" was made by eggheads here aswell and it made national headlines. But because of completely fucktarded political correctness, they refuse to even consider another solution than the mixed class one we have now. Also the system is heavily geared towards the way girls learn, but not so much how boys do. We learn best with our whole body and sitting down for hour long sessions can be pure torture for a pre-teen lad.

[raw-al]

Yeah. One can be more than a handful. But of course, if you live in a tribal society, stuff like feminism and equal rights are a laughing stock or completely alien concepts. It is probably more of a herd thing like owning cattle and pretty much the same means are used to keep the flock in right place.

True. This "discovery" was made by eggheads here as well and it made national headlines. But because of completely fucktarded political correctness, they refuse to even consider another solution than the mixed class one we have now. Also the system is heavily geared towards the way girls learn, but not so much how boys do. We learn best with our whole body and sitting down for hour long sessions can be pure torture for a pre-teen lad.

It has not been my experience grasshopper, (I am long of tooth ) that you or anyone can keep any flock in place. Only choice is to avoid pain by being very selective in choice of mate. Before you are committed, piss her off (Kimosabe not find this difficult problem    ) and see how she reacts. That never changes. LOL (me thinkum spies read this post ROFLMAO)

Second choice (to be used with first choice) is to treat women with respect and then you get it returned. I notice that when I am a jerk,  within a day or two I get a female jerk in my face. 24 hour Karma. I am certain Gud designed it that way. One more reason I think evolution is BS.

Don't get me started on those two other topics. OK I will.

Feminists are a blight on the world. Fortunately their thinking has evolved so bizarro that they have been banished screaming and kicking to the "red tent". Even the Vedic literature mentioned that crap 2000+ years ago.

Classrooms are combined now because it is cheaper. A neighbour tells me this topic has become a hot topic in the educational community. FiNaLy! I think I can remember only two or three female teachers I could learn from. Generally the rest were like a plague.

[Brother]

It has not been my experience grasshopper, (I am long of tooth  )

  Well here in my home I wear the pants and always get the last word. which tend to be "as you wish darling".

On the same tip as the seperate classes. I find that I enjoy the company of men more than that of 99% of females. It is not that I think I am better than they are, its just that the atmosphere is so much more relaxed when they are not around. I wouldnt be surprised to find that a lot of women feel the same way about us.

The idea of political equality is genuinely beneficial for all, but feminism turned into a freakshow and here where I live they have managed to damage several generations of young boys. First we were told men should be soft and whimpy and boy was the 70's man just that. And it stuck. War toys was taken from boys in kindergarden, they were instructed to "play nice" which meant all the social games that girls excell at. et cetera.

Then reality kicked in. As it went. Women werent all that attacted to these emo metrosexual whining muppets and now, atleast here where I live, more than half of the population is without a partner because everybody is fucking confused. The males dont know what to be, and the women have no idea what they want. It makes me giggle. We are the only species with such problems arent we? I mean it is the basic foundation of life and because of feminism we are now at a place where we can no longer figure it out. 

[Dwight]

ROFLMAO on both replies!!!!!

HAHA! Hi-five dude!