"Sex at Dawn"

[Powerglide 235]

This book looks like it may be the new swingers manifesto. It's been featured in Newsweek and a lot of other places. It's written by respectable scientists who argue that the natural sexual style for human beings is MMF, or maybe MMMMMMF.

 

Anyway, here's the discussion of these ideas from Savage Love:

 

"

July 8, 2010

by DAN SAVAGE

 

SHARE

COMMENTS

+ Enlarge this Image

 

JOE NEWTON

My husband of eight years confessed to wanting to watch me with another man. I found a guy, and he agreed to a full STD screening—at my husband's suggestion and our expense—so that we wouldn't have to use condoms. I was worried about how my husband would react to the reality, but he loved every minute—he loved it a little too much. My husband had sex with me after our "guest" left. I still had our guest's semen inside me. Is my husband gay? Is that what cuckolding is all about? He didn't touch the other guy, but what the fuck?

 

Spouse Expressing Concern Over Newly Disclosed Sexuality

 

"Far from being an indication of homosexuality, your husband's turn-on goes back to the roots of male heterosexual experience," says Christopher Ryan, coauthor of Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality.

 

Before Ryan walks us through what's so straight about your husband dipping his dick in another man's spunk, SECONDS, let me get this off my chest: Sex at Dawn is the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior in the Human Male on the American public in 1948. Want to understand why men married to supermodels cheat? Why so many marriages are sexless? Why paternity tests often reveal that the "father" isn't? Read Sex at Dawn.

 

Back to Ryan:

 

"Think about it," says Ryan. "Why would women have evolved the capacity for slow-building multiple orgasms while males evolved the orgasmic response of minutemen accompanied by a sudden disappearance of all interest in sex?"

 

Because—as Ryan and his coauthor Cacilda Jethá lay out in Sex at Dawn—for countless generations, our male and female ancestors, like our closest primate relatives (fuck-mad bonobos), engaged in multipartner sex. Females mated with multiple males, while males—so easily stimulated visually to this day—watched and waited their turn.

 

"Almost all of us get off on watching other people having sex," says Ryan. "Even if our minds deny it, our bodies respond in many ways, ranging from increased genital blood flow (in both sexes) to stronger male ejaculations."

 

By inviting another male into your bedroom, SECONDS, your husband—consciously or subconsciously—was inducing what's known as "sperm competition." Watching you have sex with another male made him more excited to have sex with you, not with the other male, and treated him to a more intense orgasm in you, not in the other male.

 

"So your husband's experience was very heterosexual," says Ryan.

 

I am a 24-year-old female. I've been in a relationship with a man for six years, on and off. I think I could spend my life with him. But I have a hard time being faithful. I have cheated on him with other men and with women. He and I are not together currently, but we maintain a long-distance sexual relationship. We say that we are going to be together someday, but he has no trust in me. I would love to be content, but I can't seem to go very long before I get distracted. Please give me some insight!

 

Don't Wanna Be A Heartbreaker

 

"Toward the end of Sex at Dawn," says Ryan, "there's a brief section called 'Everybody Out of the Closet.' We argue that it's not just gay people who have to go through the sort of brutally honest self-exploration involved in coming out. We all need to go through this process—and the sooner the better."

 

Here's what you need to come out about, DWBAH: You'll never be content in a monogamous relationship.

 

"It's time to stop bullshitting yourself," says Ryan. "You're very young, so, with all due respect, a certain amount of bullshit is to be expected. But you sound ready to move beyond this. Before getting into a committed relationship, you owe it to yourself and to the other person to be honest about who you are, and for now at least, you're clearly not sexually monogamous.

 

"And if you'll pardon just a few words of old-guy wisdom while Dan shares his amazing platform," Ryan continues, "many people your age misunderstand the odds of finding love in life. Few young people really appreciate that by being open about who you really are, you end up wasting much less time on relationships that are doomed from the start. In the long run, it's much more efficient to fess up about who you are and what you're really into from the get-go."

 

Who are you, DWBAH? You're a slut. (I mean that in the sex-positive sense! I'm a slut, too!). And what are you really into? Variety. And don't feel bad: You didn't fail monogamy, DWBAH, monogamy failed you—as it has failed so many others (Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, Vitter, Ensign, et al.), and will continue to, because monogamy is unrealistic and—this is not a word I toss around lightly—unnatural.

 

"Maybe half of the people you're interested in will walk away when you fess up," says Ryan. "Let them walk! Those who don't walk away are a much better investment of your time and energy—both of which are more limited than you can possibly realize at age 24."

 

I've been with my partner for 10 years. I have lost all interest in sex, while my partner still has a healthy libido. We've agreed on a weekly "sex night." I dread it. We could call it quits, but we have a child and we love each other. I don't want to break up our family, so I put up with "sex night." It sounds depressing, I know, but the alternative seems worse.

 

Wishes She Was Horny

 

"Lots of wonderful marriages aren't particularly sexual or exclusive," says Ryan, hinting at another alternative. "Sexual novelty was an important part of our evolution as a species. But, as you and your partner demonstrate, we don't all respond the same way to the absence of novelty.

 

"You don't say if your loss of libido pertains only to sex with your partner or to anyone at all," Ryan continues, "but it's a good idea to eliminate possible medical and psychological causes before concluding that it's a purely sexual issue. Assuming it's just about libido, I'd encourage you to find a middle ground that preserves your family and the love you share but incorporates a more comfortable sexual arrangement that doesn't leave your partner frustrated and you dreading 'sex night.'"

 

In other words, WSWH, ask yourself what's more important: staying married or staying monogamous?

 

"If you can find a way to take the pressure off both of you, you might find a deeper intimacy with each other and a return of your libido," says Ryan.

 

I usually end with a plug for my podcast. Not this week: Anyone who's ever struggled with monogamy—and any honest person who ever attempted it admits to struggling—needs to read Sex at Dawn. For more about the book, and how order it, go to www.sexatdawn.com."

[fun4Ds 1,097]

I'm somehow trying to connect the dots of where I had read about some of this ? Its ringing a bell.....

 

I would like to think Chicup had made a reference about the fact that things were actually all good until the invention of "farming" that to me, seems to be when "ownership" came into the greater picture of life and sexuality ?

 

Thanks for the reference Now I'm off to connect my dots a little, or find I'm an idiot and this has nothing to do with what Chicup said .... lol

[funcoupledayton 2,707]

I love Savage Love! Best advice column ever!

[The Fuse 1,012]

I listen to Savage Love all the time. Whenever there's a new episode, it's on my iPod. In fact, it's the only podcast I listen to regularly.

[socolais 696]

He has a blog Sex at Dawn | Psychology Today

[Mr.GeekChic 27]

fun4Ds said:

I'm somehow trying to connect the dots of where I had read about some of this ? Its ringing a bell...

 

I would like to think Chicup had made a reference about the fact that things were actually all good until the invention of "farming" that to me, seems to be when "ownership" came into the greater picture of life and sexuality?

 

Thanks for the reference Now I'm off to connect my dots a little, or find I'm an idiot and this has nothing to do with what Chicup said .... lol

 

Was it this article:

 

Monogamy unnatural for our sexy species - CNN.com

[Big Rock 173]

Oh, please! There are as many explanations of human sexuality as there are "rapture", dates. When are people going to think for themselves and not look for somebody to tell them how or what to do? Too many people are like sheep, no common sense at all.

[funcoupledayton 2,707]

Oh, please! There are as many explanations of human sexuality as there are "rapture", dates. When are people going to think for themselves and not look for somebody to tell them how or what to do? Too many people are like sheep, no common sense at all.

 

What are you talking about?

[cocpl2007 170]

Sounds like it is worth the time and effort to find, read, discuss and... enlighten. We're always game for some new insight into this age-old issue of monogamy. And I won't even make any "Family Law" pokes!

[Chicup 38]

While I find faults with some of the conclusions of Sex at Dawn, mostly from an evolutionary psychology stand point, it is not a bad place to start. I think The Red Queen does a better take on the idea.

[mikeb 15]

Agreed, fascinating book

[Big Rock 173]

You know, for a way of life that has been around for about 15,000 years, I think that monogamy has proven it's merit. In individual cases like my own, it doesn't seem to work, but it does work for the vast majority of humans, and has for a very long time. An old African proverb says ", never throw away your old beliefs, unless you have something of value to replace them with". We may be polys, swingers or any other group and new books will continue to come out denegrating Monogamy, but the thing we should be asking ourselves is will our own customs stand the test of time even a thousandth as well as monogamy has. Will there be swingers even 500 years from now? Will there be polys. Just because I don't practice monogamy, I don't see the value in trying to tear it down on some new-age whim.

[slevin 1,374]

You know, for a way of life that has been around for about 15,000 years, I think that monogamy has proven it's merit. In individual cases like my own, it doesn't seem to work, but it does work for the vast majority of humans, and has for a very long time. An old African proverb says ", never throw away your old beliefs, unless you have something of value to replace them with". We may be polys, swingers or any other group and new books will continue to come out denegrating Monogamy, but the thing we should be asking ourselves is will our own customs stand the test of time even a thousandth as well as monogamy has. Will there be swingers even 500 years from now? Will there be polys. Just because I don't practice monogamy, I don't see the value in trying to tear it down on some new-age whim.

 

Have you read the book? This is not written by some shifty wanna-be intellectual. It was written by two highly respected researchers in this particular field. That doesn't mean their findings should be accepted blindly, but it does show that this is more than just some fly-by night opinion. You mentioned that we should think for ourselves. Well I can't imagine a better way to do that than to read the very well researched views of experts in the field. I can make my own mind up about it by reading on the subject.

[Big Rock 173]

Have you read the book? This is not written by some shifty wanna-be intellectual. It was written by two highly respected researchers in this particular field. That doesn't mean their findings should be accepted blindly, but it does show that this is more than just some fly-by night opinion. You mentioned that we should think for ourselves. Well I can't imagine a better way to do that than to read the very well researched views of experts in the field. I can make my own mind up about it by reading on the subject.

I agree with you, and will definitely read the book, though, like you, I will make up my mind, independent of external influences.

[Chicup 38]

Having done a lot of reading on this, the most reasoned position I can find is that the 'original' human condition was long term pair bonding with limited polygamy and frequent cheating.

 

The reason for limited polygamy is that until agriculture you couldn't 'afford' harems in terms of food production. You can only gather and hunt so much food. Once agriculture took off, THEN you see massive harems.

 

This idea is backed up by testes size, human breeding (no 'in season'), documented human behavior in infidelity, the length of time it takes to raise a child to a point they are not a direct burden on the mother, etc. The concept of sperm competition, shape the penis, larger male ejaculations after thinking your woman was with another man, etc can all be explained as 'anti-cheating' and better than multiple partners. If it was multiple partners like Chimps our testes should be far larger. If we were truly monogamous they should be smaller.

 

My personal belief is that swinging allows for us to relieve the 'cheating' desire without going behind the back of our primary partner. The saying 'for every hot woman there is a man bored of fucking her' is usually true.

[swing.kidz 367]

You know, for a way of life that has been around for about 15,000 years, I think that monogamy has proven it's merit. In individual cases like my own, it doesn't seem to work, but it does work for the vast majority of humans, and has for a very long time.

 

I would like to know how you define monogamy...if your definition is similar to what Chicup says below (long term pair bonding with polygamy and extra pair sex) then, ok...I agree. BUT if your definition of monogamy implies sexual exclusivity with only one partner for the rest of the individual participants' lives, then I'd have to disagree because that doesn't (and hasn't) work(ed).

 

Divorce rates are high, infidelity rates are high...and Sex at Dawn attempts to answer the question: in a society where monogamy is touted as the end all solution, why do we have such dysfunction? If we are a "monogamous" species (which, by the way, would be unique among the great apes and almost all primates), why is there constant variation throughout recorded history? Seriously, in a population of 300M (the U.S.), if only 1% were swingers, that would make 3 million people swingers...a population the size of Los Angeles...that is A LOT of evidence AGAINST our being and preferring monogamy (I know it's not a statistical significance, but 3 million is still a huge number)...and swinging is only ONE configuration of non-monogamy that exists.

 

The book attempts to show (by using scientific methodologies and meta-analyses) the external factors and artificial economic benefits for forcing a 'monogamistic' paradigm, but it argues against the fact that monogamy (as sexual exclusivity) is a preferred or successful configuration for human relationships as a whole...

 

I agree with you, and will definitely read the book, though, like you, I will make up my mind, independent of external influences.

 

See, the consequence of limiting your worldview to only your opinion, void of external influences, is that your worldview will be severely biased and shortsighted...kind of how the irreligious view the religious.

 

If objective and empirical evidence shows something contrary to what you think is truth, just ignoring it doesn't make you right and the evidence wrong...you can't bury your head in the sand and expect the contrary reality to disappear.

 

External 'influences' should be considered, critically analyzed and assessed for validity. Then, upon general consensus, the community (social, scientific, whatever) should agree with the evidence pointing to a truth (I say "should" because many times political partisanship screws with this). You can't ignore "external influences" and expect to have a grasp on reality...sorry.

 

This idea is backed up by testes size, human breeding (no 'in season'), documented human behavior in infidelity, the length of time it takes to raise a child to a point they are not a direct burden on the mother, etc. The concept of sperm competition, shape the penis, larger male ejaculations after thinking your woman was with another man, etc can all be explained as 'anti-cheating' and better than multiple partners. If it was multiple partners like Chimps our testes should be far larger. If we were truly monogamous they should be smaller.

 

I agree, even take for instance the Coolidge Effect...very compelling data that shouldn't be ignored. It's frustrating to see data like this passed over in the scientific and social science communities especially when applying it to human relationships. I believe that if more clinicians heeded this data, we'd see more success in resolving conflicts between partners of a primary relationship.

[Powerglide 235]

You know, for a way of life that has been around for about 15,000 years, I think that monogamy has proven it's merit. In individual cases like my own, it doesn't seem to work, but it does work for the vast majority of humans, and has for a very long time. An old African proverb says ", never throw away your old beliefs, unless you have something of value to replace them with". We may be polys, swingers or any other group and new books will continue to come out denegrating Monogamy, but the thing we should be asking ourselves is will our own customs stand the test of time even a thousandth as well as monogamy has. Will there be swingers even 500 years from now? Will there be polys. Just because I don't practice monogamy, I don't see the value in trying to tear it down on some new-age whim.

 

I think you have at least one good point here, but I believe your critique contains several misconception. Let me deal with those. First, there is absolutely nothing New Age about this book. No cyrstals, no past life regression, no love signs, acupressure, reiki, homeopathy, or anything of the sort. Second, over the last 10,000 years (not 15), monogamy as we know it has not been the universal norm; polygamy has been at least as common (read your Bible!). And until the last couple of centuries, monogamy involved treating women as chattel. Finally, one thing is very clear, and that is that monogamy is NOT working like a charm for "the vast majority. Anything but. The rates of divorce and infidelity are eloquent testimony to that. In many Western countries, traditional monogamy has morphed into serial monogamy, which is really a form of polygamy, as the standard.

 

Now the term "monogamy" simply means one marriage, but we usually assume that it involves sexual fidelity. The authors, themselves married, seem to believe in the value of a life-long partnership. But you are right that the authors do not suggest any alternatives, other than suggesting that sexual infidelity alone should not end an otherwise successful marriage. The whole point of the book is that we evolved for 190,000 years as strongly promiscuous animals, and that while we can choose to behave differently, we're swimming against the stream, just as, for example, Roman Catholic priests do.

[Lascivious L&L 865]

I liked Sex At Dawn better and found it more persuasive than The Red Queen. Sex At Dawn was clear, straightforward, and always dealt with the evidence. Red Queen could go off on tangents, had a little too much preaching/opinion by the author, and could be confusing at times. I felt the author knew his stuff, but was not as proficient communicating and a little too full of himself compared to the authors of Sex At Dawn.

 

The point of Sex At Dawn was that during our long hunter/gatherer evolution, before agriculture, we behaved sexually more like bonobos than chimps. It provides a persuasive rationale for multi-partner sex during most of our evolution. The book details how the early small groups worked sexually and how the multi-partner approach aided in survival and group cohesiveness.

 

Both are very interesting books and good reads.

[Big Rock 173]

I strongly disagree with those who cite present day divorce /infidelity rates as some sort of "proof", that monogamy doesn't work. High divorce and infidelity rates have only been present in prosperous cultures, or among prosperous people, and have only been a major problem within the last 50 years. I think it bespeaks more about Western Civilizations's quest for sensual gratification and less about the validity of monogamy. So you advocate repudiating 15,000 years of history in favor of a relatively untried approach to human relationships? Foolhardy at best. I am poly , but I have tried monogamy, and also swinging, and consider myself intelligent enough to be able to make up my own mind about my own sexual/relationship issues. By external, I meant that I will decide and resent having anybody else's oar in my water. But I would NEVER repudiate my history, my parents 62 year marriage or my grandparents 71 year marriage for some book I read last week, regardless of how good a book it was. or is.

[funcoupledayton 2,707]

I strongly disagree with those who cite present day divorce /infidelity rates as some sort of "proof", that monogamy doesn't work. High divorce and infidelity rates have only been present in prosperous cultures, or among prosperous people, and have only been a major problem within the last 50 years. I think it bespeaks more about Western Civilizations's quest for sensual gratification and less about the validity of monogamy. So you advocate repudiating 15,000 years of history in favor of a relatively untried approach to human relationships? Foolhardy at best. I am poly , but I have tried monogamy, and also swinging, and consider myself intelligent enough to be able to make up my own mind about my own sexual/relationship issues. By external, I meant that I will decide and resent having anybody else's oar in my water. But I would NEVER repudiate my history, my parents 62 year marriage or my grandparents 71 year marriage for some book I read last week, regardless of how good a book it was. or is.

 

Infidelity has been around forever! Do you know for certain your parents and grandparents were always faithful? There is no way you can say you do.

 

In the past it was quite acceptable to have a mistress. I don't think today's concept of marital exclusivity has a 15,000 year history. Now women have freedoms and are able to get divorced. In the past they lived with the infidelity of their husbands or were killed for their own infidelities.

 

I don't think you need to resent anyone for researching a topic and presenting it in a logical fashion.

[Chicup 38]

Lascivious L&L said:

I liked Sex At Dawn better and found it more persuasive than The Red Queen. Sex At Dawn was clear, straightforward, and always dealt with the evidence. Red Queen could go off on tangents, had a little too much preaching/opinion by the author, and could be confusing at times. I felt the author knew his stuff, but was not as proficient communicating and a little too full of himself compared to the authors of Sex At Dawn.

 

The difference I think in the Red Queen is that it wasn't a focused book on human sexuality but a book on 'why sex' in general.

 

Quote

The point of Sex At Dawn was that during our long hunter/gatherer evolution, before agriculture, we behaved sexually more like bonobos than chimps. It provides a persuasive rationale for multi-partner sex during most of our evolution. The book details how the early small groups worked sexually and how the multi-partner approach aided in survival and group cohesiveness.

 

Chimps and bonobo chimps have been on their own evolutionary tangent for 5 million years. I don't think the evidence is strong enough to support the idea we were more like bonobos, look at the innate human jealousy with sexual relations for one thing. Bonobo's use sex almost like a handshake. Humans will quickly murder at times over sexual infidelity and this goes across several cultures. Human multiple partner sex is more of a learned response then a innate one.

 

Graphs like the one here The Evolution of Ape Ejaculate. - The Panda's Thumb

 

show we are not even in the same ballpark as chimps when it comes to being evolved for promiscuity.

[Powerglide 235]

Having done a lot of reading on this, the most reasoned position I can find is that the 'original' human condition was long term pair bonding with limited polygamy and frequent cheating.

 

I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense to me. How in the world would hunter-gatherers have ANY kind of polygamy? I see no evidence for this at all. Furthermore, neither of our closest relatives, the bonobos and the chimps, have polygamy of any sort. Gorillas do, but there is no resemblance between gorilla bands and known hunter-gatherer groups.

[Alura 2,766]

Since I'm only a few generations from a hunter-gatherer society, I have to say that there are more than a few examples of polygamy and monogamy.

 

Tribal warfare exacted early demise of warriors who often left behind widows. Someone had to provide buffalo meat and help ensure the next generation would be conceived. Black Kettle (of the Cheyenne) left behind several widows after the Massacre on the Washita. Custer captured the youngest and prettiest one and kept her as a sex slave. She conceived a son, Yellow Bird. Both were at Little Big Horn when Custer led the 7th Cavalry to doom.

 

The Cherokee were quite different, some think because of their having accepted into the tribe another tribe of Caucasians who landed on the eastern seaboard some two thousand years ago. They were the only Native Americans who practiced monotheism. They were also taller and had lighter skin. I don't know of any of my ancestors who practiced polygamy. Cheating, on the other hand, did happen.

 

My guess is that the practices of polygamy, monogamy and cheating were more dependent on circumstances than on the practices of monkeys.

[Chicup 38]

I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense to me. How in the world would hunter-gatherers have ANY kind of polygamy?

 

Expert strong hunter = good provider = can 'afford' more than one wife. Due to the limits though you won't see harems.

 

I see no evidence for this at all. Furthermore, neither of our closest relatives, the bonobos and the chimps, have polygamy of any sort. Gorillas do, but there is no resemblance between gorilla bands and known hunter-gatherer groups.

 

Calling Chimps a close relative is really meaningless here we are talking 5 million years worth of evolution between us. What we are talking about with polygamy is multiple male partners for the females. This is really the crux of the issue. Not multiple wives, but multiple sex partners, for the females.

[swing.kidz 367]

I strongly disagree with those who cite present day divorce /infidelity rates as some sort of "proof", that monogamy doesn't work. High divorce and infidelity rates have only been present in prosperous cultures, or among prosperous people, and have only been a major problem within the last 50 years.

 

I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding you... Let me explain my thoughts; first, monogamy (as sexual exclusivity) and infidelity are mutually exclusive...so even 1 single voluntary case of infidelity among a 'monogamous' species sets up the failure rate. As we see cases of infidelity among the celebrities and politicians on TV, just those cases alone are more than enough evidence against humans being a sexually monogamous species.

 

Second, as funcoupledayton puts it, infidelity has been around forever. I don't even know what more to say, because for you to say it's been around for only 50 years is obviously wrong...I must not be understanding your thoughts. Divorce (as a legal entity) is a little tricky because while America defines and conducts divorce one way, that doesn't mean something similar hasn't happened in magnitude in other cultures that should still be regarded as divorce (Read Marjorie Shostak's book Nisa, for a good introduction on different cultures' definitions of divorce). Like I said earlier, you can't have extra pair sexual behavior present in a species and still call that species monogamous or say that monogamy is a successful configuration. Your parents and grandparents (if truly monogamous) are the exception (and prey to societal indoctrination, nothing more)...your current life is anecdotal evidence of what I'm saying.

 

Western civilization is not the first to capitalize on the sensual gratification of humans, lest you forget things like the Kama Sutra and prostitution being the oldest profession, etc...so, I don't know how you think we're living in a unique set of circumstances. Rather, I think Western Civilization puts too much pressure on couples to remain sexually monogamous (while also encouraging deceitful infidelity), and this puts undue hardships on the participants of monogamy considering our innate makeup to the contrary.

 

And, yes actually, I would support the repudiation of monogamous marriage as the end all solution to human relationships even if it has a 15,000 year history (which you haven't substantiated), simply because the science shows a different innate configuration...if we didn't correct our errors based on objective science, then imagine Galileo or Charles Darwin's theories in that world. Don't get me wrong, monogamy has worked in isolated circumstances like your parents, so I'm not in support of eradicating monogamy all together; to each his/her own...in fact, I have a socially monogamous relationship since I am married and committed to my wife, but we have extra sexual behavior as well. Sexual monogamy fails miserably in most relationships and in those, we should have a legal and socially acceptable alternative other than cheating.

[Powerglide 235]

The Cherokee and the Sioux were not hunter-gatherers.

[Alura 2,766]

Damn! It was always hard to know when uncle Blind Bear was kidding.

 

"Sioux" is an Algonquin word which means "enemy." When the Europeans headed west the Algonquin told them to watch out for the sioux.

 

There are two divisions (and many subdivisions) of the tribe some folks call "The Sioux." The "Dakota" who lived in what came to be called Minnesota and eastern South and North Dakota, and the "Lakota" who lived in the western parts of "the Dakotas" and, into what is now called "Montana."

 

The Lakota men hunted and the women gathered. I don't know of any farming.

 

The Cherokee also hunted and gathered and did some light farming.

 

...or did they always hang around the trading posts waiting for handouts of "the white man's greasy spoiled meat" and whiskey?

 

Alura

[Chicup 38]

Not to derail the thread but while we are on names like this...

 

Origin of the word "Cherokee": Most of their neighbors called the Cherokees "Uplanders" or "Mountaineers", and the Cherokees referred to themselves as "the Real People" or "the Principal People", which in their language is Ani-yun'wiya' . But the Choctaw called them "Cave Dwellers" (choluk or chiluk). This was rendered phonetically by the Portuguese as "Chalaque", by the French as "Cheraqui" and by the English as "Cherokee". As used among themselves, the form is "Tsalagi".

 

I was always taught that the name Cherokee was sort of a mild insult from a neighboring tribe.

 

I was also taught they were pretty good farmers.

 

Cherokee villages were surrounded by vast cornfields while gardens were planted beside rivers and streams. In addition to corn, the Cherokee grew beans, squash, sunflowers, pumpkins, and other crops. Cherokee women were the primary farmers.

[Powerglide 235]

Expert strong hunter = good provider = can 'afford' more than one wife. Due to the limits though you won't see harems.

 

 

 

Calling Chimps a close relative is really meaningless here we are talking 5 million years worth of evolution between us. What we are talking about with polygamy is multiple male partners for the females. This is really the crux of the issue. Not multiple wives, but multiple sex partners, for the females.

 

Hunter gatherer bands share their food and there is general equality between sexes, so the strong hunter/many wives argument looks like a projection of later social practices into the past.

[Powerglide 235]

Damn! It was always hard to know when uncle Blind Bear was kidding.

 

"Sioux" is an Algonquin word which means "enemy." When the Europeans headed west the Algonquin told them to watch out for the sioux.

 

There are two divisions (and many subdivisions) of the tribe some folks call "The Sioux." The "Dakota" who lived in what came to be called Minnesota and eastern South and North Dakota, and the "Lakota" who lived in the western parts of "the Dakotas" and, into what is now called "Montana."

 

The Lakota men hunted and the women gathered. I don't know of any farming.

 

The Cherokee also hunted and gathered and did some light farming.

 

...or did they always hang around the trading posts waiting for handouts of "the white man's greasy spoiled meat" and whiskey?

 

Alura

 

The tribes of the great plains had domesticated animals. Moreover, their customs were strongly influenced by nearby agricultural societies.

[Chicup 38]

Powerglide said:

Hunter gatherer bands share their food and there is general equality between sexes, so the strong hunter/many wives argument looks like a projection of later social practices into the past.

 

I don't think this is well backed up by fact.

 

The idea that we were one big happy multiple partner commune in our past just doesn't 'jive' with almost any human society we know, past or present.

[Lascivious L&L 865]

The point is that any society in recorded history has virtually no bearing on whether humans are monogamous or not. Human evolution, including sexual evolution, happened long before recorded history, long before agriculture. Recorded history is an insignificant fraction of the time humans have been evolving.

 

That long period of evolution happened to true hunter/gathers who occupy the vast majority, virtually a totality, of all of the time humans have been a species. These are small clans spread over huge areas. Condensed population areas like villages, towns, and cities could not happen till the invention of agriculture. That invention has happened only in the last seconds of history compared to the eons that hunter/gatherers roamed earth.

 

Red Dawn's premise is that these clans were egalitarian...they could not survive any other way. Status depended on hunting, gathering, or child rearing prowess, not wealth. Prowess was power. It was survival.

 

Promiscuity was also survival. Child rearing was a function of the entire clan. No one knew who were the fathers of the children...they assumed all the men were. Clans were more matriarchal than patriarchal. All this was a function of survival in that low population density environment that comprised most of human history.

[Chicup 38]

Lascivious L&L said:

The point is that any society in recorded history has virtually no bearing on whether humans are monogamous or not. Human evolution, including sexual evolution, happened long before recorded history, long before agriculture. Recorded history is an insignificant fraction of the time humans have been evolving.

 

That long period of evolution happened to true hunter/gathers who occupy the vast majority, virtually a totality, of all of the time humans have been a species. These are small clans spread over huge areas. Condensed population areas like villages, towns, and cities could not happen till the invention of agriculture. That invention has happened only in the last seconds of history compared to the eons that hunter/gatherers roamed earth.

 

Red Dawn's premise is that these clans were egalitarian...they could not survive any other way. Status depended on hunting, gathering, or child rearing prowess, not wealth. Prowess was power. It was survival.

 

Promiscuity was also survival. Child rearing was a function of the entire clan. No one knew who were the fathers of the children...they assumed all the men were. Clans were more matriarchal than patriarchal. All this was a function of survival in that low population density environment that comprised most of human history.

 

The problem is there is absolutely no proof of this at all, its just wishful thinking. I think people WANT us to be like the peaceful free love Bonobo's and not what we are. Human sexual adaptation can be easily applied to infidelity issues. We have sexual jealousy, this is to prevent cuckolding, its an evolved response, and yet supposedly we used to just be in a giant don't' care who the father is society? This just doesn't make an sense.

[slevin 1,374]

The problem is there is absolutely no proof of this at all, its just wishful thinking. I think people WANT us to be like the peaceful free love Bonobo's and not what we are. Human sexual adaptation can be easily applied to infidelity issues. We have sexual jealousy, this is to prevent cuckolding, its an evolved response, and yet supposedly we used to just be in a giant don't' care who the father is society? This just doesn't make an sense.

 

I have no evidence to back this up; just posing a question. Is our sexual jealousy more a function of a fear of loss and not being able to replace your sexual relationship if the current one ended? In other words, would that sexual jealousy still be that strong if our current society were more open and in-line with the poly ideas that these books discuss?

 

I don't know the answer, but it crossed my mind.

[Big Rock 173]

I have no evidence to back this up; just posing a question. Is our sexual jealousy more a function of a fear of loss and not being able to replace your sexual relationship if the current one ended? In other words, would that sexual jealousy still be that strong if our current society were more open and in-line with the poly ideas that these books discuss?

 

I don't know the answer, but it crossed my mind.

Good question.

[Lascivious L&L 865]

There is not much hard evidence for any of the suppositions about our early sexuality. I felt Sex At Dawn provided more evidence for its premise than did The Red Queen. That is for early human's egalitarian, multi sex partner, bonobo style sexuality. As Chicup pointed out Red Queen delved the why of sex, but also went into depth about the how of early sex. The why of sex was backed up by evidence and citing others. The how of sex was less so and much more an opinion piece.

 

When you pare down pre-agricultural existence to what was survival enhancing and what was not, the male macho junk does not enhance survival. Tight knit clans will outsurvive looser ones. One male having many wives does not out perform multi sex partner fatherhood and the clan raising children rather than parent couples. Harems simply can't be supported in small clans. Harems and polygamy evolved with the invention of agriculture.

 

Slevin's point is a good one. When there is multi partner sexuality, jealousy is much less an issue. Sex At Dawn's premise includes the clan's discouragement of jealousy much as our society discourages non-monogamy.

[Big Rock 173]

In hunter/gatherer amd agricultural societies, MMF or M++++F simply doesn't work as a survival plan. It only works with animals where one female can have multiple births, or lays multiple eggs. The reason that one male human can impregnate multiple females and that one human female can have only one or few children is that it gives the best chance for survival for the offspring. Nature doesn't admit of mistakes, nor does she tolerate waste. At some point in time , and for the best survival reasons, humans moved away from the chimp, and towards the one on one pair bonding, and considering that we are the most successful species of mammal, it must be working. It is no surprise that In the modern era where birth rates are high and survival rates for offspring are high and food supplies are generally high and birth control is readily available, that we are re-thinking our sexual rituals, but this in no way invalidates past practices. One female with more than one male is wasteful of resources (considering that males eat more and require more resources than females) It is no accident that of all mammals, the human population is ALMOST evenly divided between male and female. This whole idea smacks of new-age mentality, and none of the "proofs", have stood the test of time. To date, no poly or female dominant society has been successful as anything other than a fringe group, and I defy anyone to say different.

[swing.kidz 367]

The problem is there is absolutely no proof of this at all, its just wishful thinking. I think people WANT us to be like the peaceful free love Bonobo's and not what we are. Human sexual adaptation can be easily applied to infidelity issues. We have sexual jealousy, this is to prevent cuckolding, its an evolved response, and yet supposedly we used to just be in a giant don't' care who the father is society? This just doesn't make an sense.

 

Ok, so jealousy is a universal trait among humans. The problem, however, is that what we are jealous of isn't universal...and that is a point that the book was trying to make. Jealousy comes when there is something to be jealous of; basically when one individual has more of a specific resource than another individual...like access to sexual partners. The book is arguing that in an era like what we have post-agriculturally, top tier female sexual partners are a limited resource, only acquired by men who have attained capitalistic success. And those men will jealously defend their acquisitions (Sex at Dawn hypothesizes this is where war comes from)...obviously, this isn't the most successful configuration of human sexuality, because it commoditizes women and limits their individual (including sexual) freedom, among the other social issues we have already discussed.

 

I have no evidence to back this up; just posing a question. Is our sexual jealousy more a function of a fear of loss and not being able to replace your sexual relationship if the current one ended? In other words, would that sexual jealousy still be that strong if our current society were more open and in-line with the poly ideas that these books discuss?

 

As Slevin points out, the book (with its evidence) supports the idea that in a matriarchal society, we would live more peacefully; women (and, therefore sex) wouldn't be a commodity since sex would be freely available. When sex fails to be a limited resource, sexual jealousy would not occur frequently, if at all. I've definitely truncated the authors' explanation, but this is a quick recap.

 

The evidence for this is in their book, it is also cross referenced in their sources...evidence that is clear in contemporary hunter/gatherer societies (remember the stories of clans ostracizing members who exhibit jealous behavior?) and longitudinal studies of great apes. They have anatomical data that correlates directly with the differences in the social structures of the great apes (among other mammals)...and we can use that to suggest the same in humans (like we do with ALL other animal studies). Their suggestion is that all of this data supports an egalitarian "bonoboist" social structure in humans, more than any other social structure exhibited in the great apes.

 

So, to say there is no evidence because it all happened before recorded history is a lame statement. What about evolution? None of us were there to watch the changes in Earth's biodiversity, but we simply accept that theory as truth. Here is an overused analogy: it's just like a crime scene; take the evidence, piece the facts together based on a high probability (yeah, our stats can be shit..ok).

 

I'm not saying that Sex at Dawn has the answer to everything and should be regarded as the bible...further from that, I would like to vet their data...and I appreciate the counter arguments proposed here. But, please show me then, the data that is inline with the anthropological and anatomical data, the animal studies, etc. that suggest a different human pre-history and ultimately different innate human behavior?

 

I think, that in the last 500+ years, we have been fed a load of crap about humanity...that war, violence, and irrational sexual jealousy are inevitable. I think that is because of a different innate human trait..the trait to fall lockstep with the status quo and blindly adhere to authority. Look at our religious past, and the way the "god" we are supposed to emulate acts. I think there are many more variables in current society that push us to be the way we are.

 

There is compelling data to suggest we are innately different than what were told, and that data should be respected and investigated. Obviously, if what was suggested in that book is the truth, there is no pragmatic solution to instituting it in contemporary society (require all of congress to be female? *wink)...but it would be nice to know that WE as swingers actually have the answer...although, it seems like we know this already.

 

Man, sorry that was long.

[Chicup 38]

I have no evidence to back this up; just posing a question. Is our sexual jealousy more a function of a fear of loss and not being able to replace your sexual relationship if the current one ended? In other words, would that sexual jealousy still be that strong if our current society were more open and in-line with the poly ideas that these books discuss?

 

I'd have to think so yes. I've actually felt that jealousy over long term swing partners. Its a visceral reaction, not rational one. My feeling is that because of that jealousy you won't see happy puppy pile sex in our past. About the only place you can find anything like that would be Rome, which was an advanced culture with a lot of leisure time, and even so the 'Roman Orgy' is a overstated idea.

 

The only possible primitive group we know of like this MIGHT be the Zo'e tribe, but its very sketchy on how their society works.

 

The big issue is proof. If this was the 'original' human condition we should see more of it, and it be accepted more as it would be innate to our being. Its a nice idea as a concept but its nothing but that. We humans have been on our own development for 5 million years compared to the other great apes, and none of their (all very different) mating systems are like ours. I think the comparison we have to social birds is more accurate a comparison. We are 'monogamous' in that we pair bond, we have a mother and a father that help in child raising. We also have a number of defections and a lot of cheating going on inside that relationship.

 

If this were the 'basic' human evolved condition I'd expect poly groups with multiple males to be far more stable long term. I'd not expect to see 'primaries' in a poly relationship at all. Even in the vast harems of days past there would still be a 'wife' who was senior and produced the heirs.

[Lascivious L&L 865]

Sex At Dawn provided evidence for their premise. Some of that evidence dealt with the few hunter/gather societies that still exist or existed in recorded history. If you don't accept that evidence, that's fine. But, Chicup, you are ignoring evidence offered by the authors in favor of your own opinion, which is not evidence.

 

One of their most important points is that the invention of agriculture changed everything about humanity. For the first time in our history resources weren't spread out thinly in the environment. Resources became concentrated, enabling one person, group or institution to control access. This beget the rise of a new form of power as well as the rise of wealth. The corollary is the rise of poverty and population.

 

Before agriculture resources weren't concentrated and no one could have power over those resources. Hunting and gathering were necessary to survival. Small groups prospered over larger ones. Child survival was a critical stress point in survival. In a small group, raising children in the group, as a group, was more efficient. Pair bonds were less efficient as a means of procreation and child raising.

 

Before agriculture and after are two entirely different environments for humans, altering completely access to resources and concentrations of those resources as well as concentrations of population. Today we no longer have an environment like early humans faced. The world is changed, drastically. So too have the customs of sexuality.

[Big Rock 173]

Sex At Dawn provided evidence for their premise. Some of that evidence dealt with the few hunter/gather societies that still exist or existed in recorded history. If you don't accept that evidence, that's fine. But, Chicup, you are ignoring evidence offered by the authors in favor of your own opinion, which is not evidence.

 

One of their most important points is that the invention of agriculture changed everything about humanity. For the first time in our history resources weren't spread out thinly in the environment. Resources became concentrated, enabling one person, group or institution to control access. This beget the rise of a new form of power as well as the rise of wealth. The corollary is the rise of poverty and population.

 

Before agriculture resources weren't concentrated and no one could have power over those resources. Hunting and gathering were necessary to survival. Small groups prospered over larger ones. Child survival was a critical stress point in survival. In a small group, raising children in the group, as a group, was more efficient. Pair bonds were less efficient as a means of procreation and child raising.

 

Before agriculture and after are two entirely different environments for humans, altering completely access to resources and concentrations of those resources as well as concentrations of population. Today we no longer have an environment like early humans faced. The world is changed, drastically. So too have the customs of sexuality.

The idea that child-rearing is a group function is a false one, IMO. Having two parental figures undivided attention would seem to be more efficient and result in a higher rate of children reaching maturity than a group setting , in which no child recieves the full emotional/physical investment of any single adult. The premise that it takes a village to raise a child, ignores infancy, where it take the undivided attention of at least one parent for the child to reach the level of self-sufficiency where this ( group rearing) would be possible. It is no accident that those species in which the child is born or hatched in a helpless state are those species that have pair bonding, or have the undivided attention of at least the mother. So from birth to the age of self-care, monogamy is most efficient for child-rearing in humans.

[slevin 1,374]

The idea that child-rearing is a group function is a false one, IMO. Having two parental figures undivided attention would seem to be more efficient and result in a higher rate of children reaching maturity than a group setting , in which no child recieves the full emotional/physical investment of any single adult. The premise that it takes a village to raise a child, ignores infancy, where it take the undivided attention of at least one parent for the child to reach the level of self-sufficiency where this ( group rearing) would be possible. It is no accident that those species in which the child is born or hatched in a helpless state are those species that have pair bonding, or have the undivided attention of at least the mother. So from birth to the age of self-care, monogamy is most efficient for child-rearing in humans.

 

And do you have proof or evidence to support your hypothesis?

[Alura 2,766]

And do you have proof or evidence to support your hypothesis?

 

In Post #36 above, Slevin, you wrote: I have no evidence to back this up; just posing a question.

 

Please give others the same leeway. I don't agree with Rocky on this one either and will address it below.

 

Alura

[slevin 1,374]

In Post #36 above, Slevin, you wrote: I have no evidence to back this up; just posing a question.

 

Please give others the same leeway. I don't agree with Rocky on this one either and will address it below.

 

Alura

 

The difference is that I posed a supposition and I was clear that I had no evidence to support it (although the book does). BigRock is making definitive statements while offering no basis for them. I don't see my prodding for evidence as unreasonable.

[Alura 2,766]

Big Rock said:

The idea that child-rearing is a group function is a false one, IMO. Having two parental figures undivided attention would seem to be more efficient and result in a higher rate of children reaching maturity than a group setting , in which no child recieves the full emotional/physical investment of any single adult. The premise that it takes a village to raise a child, ignores infancy, where it take the undivided attention of at least one parent for the child to reach the level of self-sufficiency where this ( group rearing) would be possible. It is no accident that those species in which the child is born or hatched in a helpless state are those species that have pair bonding, or have the undivided attention of at least the mother. So from birth to the age of self-care, monogamy is most efficient for child-rearing in humans.

 

I'm a person who does believe "It Takes a Village..." ... or at least an extended family. When I was growing up my aunts and uncles cared very much for all the children. If it hadn't been for my Uncle Blind Bear, in particular, I'd have learned very little about our ancestry.

 

I remember a time, immediately after my grandfather's funeral... I was seven. I was crying uncontrollably on the steps of the church when my Aunt Ruby came and comforted me. She held me in her arms until my parents, who had stopped inside the church to talk to another relative, came out. They didn't "take over" from Aunt Ruby, but joined in until all were sure I was okay.

 

My parents were wonderful people but I've always been grateful that they had help in bringing me up.

[Alura 2,766]

slevin said:

The difference is that I posed a supposition and I was clear that I had no evidence to support it (although the book does). BigRock is making definitive statements while offering no basis for them. I don't see my prodding for evidence as unreasonable.

 

Sorry. I took your question to be a rhetorical one. Wasn't it? I thought you, like I, thought it unlikely that he had proof for his opinion.

 

Perhaps you can just explain why Rocky, in your opinion, is wrong. You won't even need evidence to support your opinion.

[slevin 1,374]

Alura said:

Sorry. I took your question to be a rhetorical one. Wasn't it? I thought you, like I, thought it unlikely that he had proof for his opinion.

 

Perhaps you can just explain why Rocky, in your opinion, is wrong. You won't even need evidence to support your opinion.

 

I am fairly certain he has no evidence, but I wanted to provide him the opportunity to present some if he does. Either that or clarify that they are an opinion.

 

You did a good job of capturing my personal experience with "it takes a village"

[Alura 2,766]

slevin said:

I am fairly certain he has no evidence, but I wanted to provide him the opportunity to present some if he does. Either that or clarify that they are an opinion.

 

You did a good job of capturing my personal experience with "it takes a village"

 

Yeah, me too. (...about the evidence.)

 

However, Big Rock did begin his post with "The idea that child-rearing is a group function is a false one, IMO."

 

Thanks for your nice words about my post. We usually agree.

[slevin 1,374]

Alura said:

Yeah, me too. (...about the evidence.)

 

However, Big Rock did begin his post with "The idea that child-rearing is a group function is a false one, IMO.

 

Thanks for your nice words about my post. We usually agree.

 

True enough, I missed the IMO the first time around. Cheers

 

As for the it takes a village concept, I think my childhood was shaped by my grandparents and some of my aunts and uncles as much as it was by my parents. I spent a lot of time with my grandparents when I was young. They helped my parents out by looking after me when I was a baby while my parents both worked. They did a lot of babysitting, I spent entire summers living with them and anytime I needed some guidance on life they were always there supporting me. The same goes for a whole bunch of my aunts and uncles. I spent a lot of time with my extended family around and there were times when they were there for me in those moments that my parents couldn't be.

 

My life would have been markedly different if I didn't have all of that family around supporting each other. It was amazing to grow up in a close knit family like that. I know that I felt unconditional love and acceptance from all of them. That is an amazing thing to feel from so many people.

[Alura 2,766]

I read It Takes a Village... when it first came out and agreed totally with "What's-Her-Name," the author.

 

Although our family was smaller than my eighteen aunts and uncles, our son's grandparents pitched in a lot. The boys spent many weekends with them which not only broadened their experiences, but gave us a chance to swing.

 

Our older son, a senior on scholarship at a rather exclusive university, is on schedule to graduate magna cum laude. His brother is a sophomore at another university on a similar track. I couldn't be prouder but can't take all the credit myself. Too many people, including some pretty special teachers and professors, were involved in making them what they are.

 

Isn't that "a village?"