Decadent Sexual Utopias

[hmkpoker]

Let's say that, through the development of science and technology, we eventually come up with perfect birth control (mothers and fathers have the ability to decide when and if they want to procreate when they have sex with near 100% accuracy with no infringement on the sexual pleasure), and perfect STD control (most STD's have been eliminated, and if someone catches something, they walk in the doctor's office, and poof! they're healed).

Basically it's <u>Brave New World</u> kind of deal in that regard.

If this was the case, what would be the point of moral or cultural restrictions on voluntary sexual activity? If teenagers wanted to have orgies on a regular basis (no!), would there be any remaining reason for them not to do it?

[Jshuttlesworth]

[ QUOTE ]
If this was the case, what would be the point of moral or cultural restrictions on voluntary sexual activity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because God spoke to me in a dream and told me not to have sex.

[Jshuttlesworth]

He also told me not to eat meat on Fridays, but that was a different dream, IIRC.

[Jshuttlesworth]

Oh and then he told me that it was okay to eat meat on Friday.

[The Dude]

I would wager a guess to say that most people who are not into casual sex feel that way for a reason other than the risks you described. Sure, casual sex would happen a lot more often, and I'm sure a whole lot more people in this world be up for it, but still. This does nothing to persuade those who attempt to find value in placing restrictions on what kind of relationship you must have with someone in order to have sex with them.

I would also wager a guess to say that of those not completely comfortable with having purely casual and/or multiple partner sex, a much larger percentage of those than many would think beleive that way for reasons not necessarily involving religion. I know more than a few atheists and agnostics who are not into casual sex.

[madnak]

Hypothetical? Damn, you got my hopes up and everything.

[bunny]

I think sex involves more than just a physical connection so I think it is reasonable to protect people from experiencing it when they are not equipped to cope with all it entails.

So I would support restrictions that protected children, mentally incapable, etc etc...Both protecting them from exploitation and also from getting involved in something they are not ready for.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think sex involves more than just a physical connection

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't.

[pilliwinks]

Yes it does.

Whee, this is fun.

[billygrippo]

our morals and customs would have had to have already changed for this type of society to exist.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
our morals and customs would have had to have already changed for this type of society to exist.

[/ QUOTE ] Distinguish between mores which are the prevaling view of what should/shouldn't be done and morality proper, as talked about by philosophers, which is really what is right and what is wrong.

Slavery and rape were morally wrong in 2000 BC, 1600 AD, and 2006 AD, but mores against slavery exist only in 2006 AD

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
I think sex involves more than just a physical connection so I think it is reasonable to protect people from experiencing it when they are not equipped to cope with all it entails.


[/ QUOTE ] Here we are talking about what the law should be which is conceptually distinct from what is right and what is wrong, just a FYI.

Anyway, I am not 'equipped to cope with all it entails' as a 24 year old college educated giant IQ male, probably regardless of what this ambigous statement means when it is unpacked. Does it follow that it is wrong for me to engage in sexual activity, or that I should not be allowed to engage in it? Perhaps that is how people learn ot be 'equipped to cope with all it entails' from experience, particularly rebllious youngsters, or perhaps it doesn't matter.

I get a job tomorrow that I am not equipped to cope with all it entails. But I will learn how to do so eventually in all likelihood. Is it wrong for me to take that job?

[BluffTHIS!]

hmk,

I think you are assuming that a situation that would be a utopia for some, would be for you as well. With no rules of any kind, that means the more virile and good looking males will be able to marry and maintain stables with several women. Which of course means some men go without. This means in your case that you would likely be SOL unless you're gay.

[madnak]

What about tricke-down economics?

[BluffTHIS!]

That means you get the 20 year old hotties when they're older and wrinkled and used up.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
hmk,

I think you are assuming that a situation that would be a utopia for some, would be for you as well. With no rules of any kind, that means the more virile and good looking males will be able to marry and maintain stables with several women. Which of course means some men go without. This means in your case that you would likely be SOL unless you're gay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you assuming that women would want to consent to such a situation?

[BluffTHIS!]

Because of your implicit assumption that the majority of women are as interested in sex as men are.

[hmkpoker]

You need to get out more, Catholic boy.

[BluffTHIS!]

You need to get married and see if that assumption is true (I'm not but am going by what my friends tell me).

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to get married and see if that assumption is true (I'm not but am going by what my friends tell me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Married males testosterone levels are statistically lower than those of single males of the same age. Marriage screws both parties' sex drives.

There's a strong cultural factor too; promiscuous females get more social backlash than promiscuous males ([censored] are villified while studs are looked up to, that sort of thing). Personally, I think that's ridiculous, because [censored] are wonderful people /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to get married and see if that assumption is true (I'm not but am going by what my friends tell me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya BluffTHIS,

I have been married three times. Every one was a good marriage, mutually rewarding, etc. I have also had a couple of relationships without marriage and, to me, they were as rewarding and intense as the marriages.

I guess my understanding of marriage is different from yours. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cheers

MidGe

[BluffTHIS!]

MidGe,

My understanding of the amount of sex in marriage from friends over the years, is that the old story of the bean jar is accurate. Get a big bag of dried beans and put a bean in a big jar everytime you have sex the first year you are married, and then remove one for everytime after the first year. And the jar will never be emptied.

[guesswest]

If that was the case mores would undoubtably change - but they'd change very slowly. If you consider all the lingering psychological reflexes we have now, from millenia ago, we wouldn't lose those conditioned responses very quickly with regards to viewing sex as an act with consequences/risks as a fundamental response.

And you'd also have to wonder if we'd lose our sexual urges and our enjoyment in sex also as we evolved in that direction, since sex would no longer have a utilitarian purpose - or anything like as much of one.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
And you'd also have to wonder if we'd lose our sexual urges and our enjoyment in sex also as we evolved in that direction, since sex would no longer have a utilitarian purpose - or anything like as much of one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure if I follow you there, but sex always had the utility of being mutually pleasurable, and promoting good health, in my experience. I never saw any other values in it.

[guesswest]

Yes but those pleasurable responses are conditioned by many years of evolution, to make it an attractive goal in the interests of reproduction. From the complex psychological factors involved in attraction right down to very physiological things like orgasm.

If sex stops being associated with reproduction, you'd think we might evolve so that those responses are dulled or (eventually) even eroded completely.

[pilliwinks]

I don't understand the OP. We are more or less living in that world now. Your chances of getting pregnant or diseased are already low enough not to trouble most people.

Somehow not everybody seems to want orgies. They tried it a bit in the 60s when birth control started to be more widespread, but it never seemed to catch on. And this even in the groups most strongly opposed to cultural or moral restrictions of any kind.

The sad fact seems to be that people prefer intimacy to orgies. Especially female people. That may be evolutionary conditioning, or it may be an inevitable part of being human, but either way medical advances are not going to provide your orgies any time soon /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think sex involves more than just a physical connection so I think it is reasonable to protect people from experiencing it when they are not equipped to cope with all it entails.


[/ QUOTE ] Here we are talking about what the law should be which is conceptually distinct from what is right and what is wrong, just a FYI.

Anyway, I am not 'equipped to cope with all it entails' as a 24 year old college educated giant IQ male, probably regardless of what this ambigous statement means when it is unpacked. Does it follow that it is wrong for me to engage in sexual activity, or that I should not be allowed to engage in it? Perhaps that is how people learn ot be 'equipped to cope with all it entails' from experience, particularly rebllious youngsters, or perhaps it doesn't matter.

I get a job tomorrow that I am not equipped to cope with all it entails. But I will learn how to do so eventually in all likelihood. Is it wrong for me to take that job?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think it is inherently wrong to allow someone to enter a situation beyond their experience, no. But I think it is a question of degree - eventually it is. So I would want to prevent a twelve year old from entering a mutually consensual sexual relationship with a twenty year old (impinging on their personal freedoms). I wouldnt want to prevent an immature thirty year old. I cant provide a complete rationalisation for this - but it seems ethical to me.

[guesswest]

That reminds me an onion headline from a couple weeks ago:

'Pedophile Less Interested The More He Views 13-Year Old's Myspace Profile'


Edit: And on a more serious note - I think the rationalisation that could be made there is that it's not actually possible for a consensual relationship in that situation. Specifically that a 12 year old doesn't have the mental faculty and emotional maturity to form consent.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think sex involves more than just a physical connection

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well it seems that way to me. I cannot have sex without becoming emotionally involved with the person, for instance. Also - every relationship I have ever been in has "moved to another level" if we began having sex. Suddenly there are a whole host of other expectations.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it does.

Whee, this is fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I don't need anything more than a physical connection in order to insert my penis into a vagina. Oh, the sensual delights of being an atheist!

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Because of your implicit assumption that the majority of women are as interested in sex as men are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because women aren't interested in sex with *you*, doesn't mean they're not interested in sex.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
If sex stops being associated with reproduction, you'd think we might evolve so that those responses are dulled or (eventually) even eroded completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

For everyone other than religious zealots, sex is only "associated" with reproduction about .001% of the time. I have never had sex and "associated" it with reproduction -- and yet it has always been pleasurable. Funny how that works.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes it does.

Whee, this is fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I don't need anything more than a physical connection in order to insert my penis into a vagina. Oh, the sensual delights of being an atheist!

[/ QUOTE ]
I have always considered sex to be more than purely physical whether as an atheist, agnostic or theist. I think it is more relevant whether you identify yourself as a materialist or dualist. Even if there is no God - I think sex is more than a physical act.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If sex stops being associated with reproduction, you'd think we might evolve so that those responses are dulled or (eventually) even eroded completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

For everyone other than religious zealots, sex is only "associated" with reproduction about .001% of the time. I have never had sex and "associated" it with reproduction -- and yet it has always been pleasurable. Funny how that works.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're grasping my point. I'm talking about millions of years of evolution shaping our brain and bodies to make sex desirable and associated with pleasure. In short, we have sexual urges because they drive us towards the action which will perpetuate our gene pool.

I was suggesting that as the action (sex) becomes removed from the outcome (reproduction), that over a (very long) period of time the motivation will likely change in response. It's nothing to do with your own personal sexual philosophy - whether you're the pope or the Marquis de Sade.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding of the amount of sex in marriage from friends over the years, is... Get a big bag of dried beans and put a bean in a big jar everytime you have sex the first year you are married, and then remove one for everytime after the first year. And the jar will never be emptied.

[/ QUOTE ]

BluffTHIS,
I think are views on marriage are fairly similar, but I'll be damned if my marriage turns out this way.

[Mark H]

It dosen't have to. Iv'e been married 27 years and still have sex 3-4 times a week and its not always me asking. opps gotta go i,m being called to the bedroom. /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Mark H

[deleteduser]

This would definatly solve a lot of NBA players problems

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I am not 'equipped to cope with all it entails' as a 24 year old college educated giant IQ male

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm starting to see this forum as a battleground for intellectual titans

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It dosen't have to. Iv'e been married 27 years and still have sex 3-4 times a week and its not always me asking. opps gotta go i,m being called to the bedroom. /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Mark H

[/ QUOTE ]

Props /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I am not 'equipped to cope with all it entails' as a 24 year old college educated giant IQ male

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm starting to see this forum as a battleground for intellectual titans

[/ QUOTE ]

and moorobot

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If sex stops being associated with reproduction, you'd think we might evolve so that those responses are dulled or (eventually) even eroded completely.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



For everyone other than religious zealots, sex is only "associated" with reproduction about .001% of the time. I have never had sex and "associated" it with reproduction -- and yet it has always been pleasurable. Funny how that works.

[/ QUOTE ] according to many evolutionary biologists, sex feels good preciscely because it is the way (or at least was the only way at one point in time) to bring about reproduction, to make sure species propogate.

However, natural selection does not generally eliminate already existing useless but unharmful organs/sensations etc.; it elimnates things harmful to the reproduction of the genes carried within us and tends to keep the 'random mutation' (technically what they are called) that increase genetic fitness. So it is unlikely sexual 'feelings' will be eliminated by natural selection just because they become no longer useful in the future, and even if they are this process takes a long, long time...thousands of years.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a strong cultural factor too; promiscuous females get more social backlash than promiscuous males ([censored] are villified while studs are looked up to, that sort of thing). Personally, I think that's ridiculous, because [censored] are wonderful people /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, this phenomena isnt completely cultural. There is a biological basis for it, which goes back the fact that men biologically should be more interested in casual sex than women.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]

However, natural selection does not generally eliminate already existing useless but unharmful organs/sensations etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's a fair point.

Though it occurs to me that if sex lost it's utility as a means of reproduction, it could very well be a negative as opposed to a neutral in terms of human flourishment. If you think of some of the things people are prone to do as a result of sexual urges that are counter-productive/harmful to other areas of their lives.

[madnak]

The question is whether they can produce viable offspring. These days choice seems to be the major determinant, almost anyone can have kids if they want to.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the OP. We are more or less living in that world now. Your chances of getting pregnant or diseased are already low enough not to trouble most people.


[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

"According to the CDC, “more than 65 million people (in the U.S.) are currently living with an incurable sexually transmitted disease (STD). An additional 15 million people become infected with one or more STDs each year, roughly half of whom contract lifelong infections (Cates, 1999).”

These statistics indicate that about one in four U.S. Citizens has an incurable STD. Students are urged to avoid becoming that ONE by practicing abstinence or by developing safer sex practices, if they choose to participate in sexual activity. For more information, please visit the CDC web site at www.cdc.gov (http://www.cdc.gov) or the GDHR web site at www.dhr.state.ga.us. (http://www.dhr.state.ga.us.)"

[madnak]

Please link the specific page. Unless 90% of them are HPV I'm pretty suspicious.

Regardless, safer sex practices reduce the risk by many orders of magnitude, to the point it's virtually nonexistent.

[pilliwinks]

Those are impressive numbers. Hooray for the land of the free.

They do tend to emphasize my point, though. Most people these days do not refrain from sex for fear of disease or pregnancy (I'm sure you could come up with equally huge statistics about the numbers of abortions). Don't get me wrong, I think it's a sad state of affairs (no pun intended).

[MaxWeiss]

And how was it? I never got around to reading it. Worth reading or no???

[Mr. Now]

Mr. Now thinks that, in that case, society would ultimately tend towards malecentric polygamy- one man with many women in his clan.

This tends to result in a society where a great many low-status males get absolutely nothing.

That kind of structure structure tends to result in a very unstable society.

Monogamous marriage as an instution isnt just about avoiding STDs and providing a stable venue for pregnancy. It's also about creating social stability, such that the society can scale to compete successfully against other societies-- who DO scale.

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
giant IQ

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
according to many evolutionary biologists, sex feels good preciscely because it is the way (or at least was the only way at one point in time) to bring about reproduction, to make sure species propogate.

However, natural selection does not generally eliminate already existing useless but unharmful organs/sensations etc.; it elimnates things harmful to the reproduction of the genes carried within us and tends to keep the 'random mutation' (technically what they are called) that increase genetic fitness. So it is unlikely sexual 'feelings' will be eliminated by natural selection just because they become no longer useful in the future, and even if they are this process takes a long, long time...thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
Please link the specific page. Unless 90% of them are HPV I'm pretty suspicious.

Regardless, safer sex practices reduce the risk by many orders of magnitude, to the point it's virtually nonexistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, it might be. I got the quote from my ga state university site. Looking at the CDC, I really don't find total statistics, just specific stats on specific diseases. I am curious what is the likelyhood of getting an STD, if anyone knows any good statistics I'd like to see them.

[madnak]

Well, for instance, HPV is very common. But HIV is very uncommon in the US.

Lumping them together isn't useful because HPV is pretty much harmless while HIV has an annoying tendency to kill people.

[Marko Schmarko]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
giant IQ

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
according to many evolutionary biologists, sex feels good preciscely because it is the way (or at least was the only way at one point in time) to bring about reproduction, to make sure species propogate.

However, natural selection does not generally eliminate already existing useless but unharmful organs/sensations etc.; it elimnates things harmful to the reproduction of the genes carried within us and tends to keep the 'random mutation' (technically what they are called) that increase genetic fitness. So it is unlikely sexual 'feelings' will be eliminated by natural selection just because they become no longer useful in the future, and even if they are this process takes a long, long time...thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this for irony? Because he seems pretty on point.

If it's not for irony, you're a ball licker.

[KaneKungFu123]

Guys,

I cant imagine having sex less then 10-14 times/week.

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
giant IQ

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
according to many evolutionary biologists, sex feels good preciscely because it is the way (or at least was the only way at one point in time) to bring about reproduction, to make sure species propogate.

However, natural selection does not generally eliminate already existing useless but unharmful organs/sensations etc.; it elimnates things harmful to the reproduction of the genes carried within us and tends to keep the 'random mutation' (technically what they are called) that increase genetic fitness. So it is unlikely sexual 'feelings' will be eliminated by natural selection just because they become no longer useful in the future, and even if they are this process takes a long, long time...thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this for irony? Because he seems pretty on point.

If it's not for irony, you're a ball licker.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe you have no issues with this particular piece of writing...

irony?

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]

Lumping them together isn't useful because HPV is pretty much harmless while HIV has an annoying tendency to kill people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not entirely true. HPV is very much linked to cervical cancer.

-JP

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
sex feels good preciscely because it is the way (or at least was the only way at one point in time) to bring about reproduction, to make sure species propogate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your looking at evolution backwards here. Sex doesnt feel good so that we propogate. We propogate because sex feels so good.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sex feels good preciscely because it is the way (or at least was the only way at one point in time) to bring about reproduction, to make sure species propogate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your looking at evolution backwards here. Sex doesnt feel good so that we propogate. We propogate because sex feels so good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you arent being serious.

[madnak]

No, he's right. Evolution isn't directed, it's just a mechanism. The reason our ancestors were the ones whose genetic data passed down to us (rather than their competitors) was because our ancestors were the ones who liked to screw.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Now thinks that, in that case, society would ultimately tend towards malecentric polygamy- one man with many women in his clan.

This tends to result in a society where a great many low-status males get absolutely nothing.

That kind of structure structure tends to result in a very unstable society.


[/ QUOTE ]

So society will ultimately adapt an unstable norm?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Your looking at evolution backwards here. Sex doesnt feel good so that we propogate. We propogate because sex feels so good.

[/ QUOTE ] In terms of the issue we are discussing the distinction is irrelevant, and this does not effect the conclusion of my argument: beings who did not enjoy propgating would have been pro tanto less likely to survive than ones who did, and that is all that matters.

The difference is just semantics for this issue; doesn't matter who is right.

[Mr. Now]

No. The basic premise here is that for societies to compete effectively against other societies, they must scale ... and to scale they must be stable, and to be stable they must favor monogamous marriage and supporting social and moral rules/norms.

An abundance of frustrated, mostly young low-status males are the result of polygamy. That is a very destabilizing force and does not scale. Just take a look at the results around the world.

Monogamy is a tool of social control. Without it you have an unstable nation that cannot scale to compete in the biggest and most lucrative games played by nation-states.

Consider polygamy in a group where there are 100 males and 100 females. Lets say we can order the males and females perfectly by social status and rank and we do that. Now we have 2 ordered lists.

Next, start pairing them such that the #1 male pairs with #1 female, 2 with 2, etc.

Mr. Now notices that at some point, a female near the bottom by rank correctly figures she and her eggs are better off being the #2 wife of the #1 male. Let’s say this becomes a popular idea with low-ranking females, many of whom jump ship and settle for a similar status-deal with the #1 male.

The net effect is:

1. The #1 male has exclusive banging privileges over many women;
2. This is key: the extra wives of #1 (and their eggs) are much better off economically for the switch;
3. The lowest ranking males get absolutely nothing.

That doesn’t scale. Which is why we don’t see it in large societies that DO compete effectively.

The reason for monogamy is pretty simple. It prevents the destabilizing force of a high percentage of low-status males from interfering with obtaining scale sufficient to compete.

The whole no-STD-perfect-birth-control hypothetical deal, in Mr. Now's view, tends to relax the social norms that support and maintain monogamy. That is, norms that support and maintain the ability to scale and compete at the nation-state/societal level.

If you want to read about the relationship between prehistoric drugs, female promiscuity, language development and consciousness expansion, here's a treat.

Ready?

McKenna's "Stoned Ape" theory of human evolution (http://users.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/McKenna/Evolution/theory.html)

[ QUOTE ]

NH: Can you briefly explain the theory you put forth in Food of the Gods?

Terence McKenna: The primate tendency to form dominance heirarchies was temporarily interrupted for about 100,000 years by the psilocybin in the paleolithic diet. This behavioral style of male dominance was chemically interrupted by psilocybin in the diet, so it allowed the style of social organization called partnership to emerge, and that that occured during the period when language, altruism, planning, moral values, esthetics, music and so forth -- everything associated with humanness -- emerged during that period. About 12,000 years ago, the mushrooms left the human diet because they were no longer available, due to climatological change and the previous tendency to form dominance heirarchies re-emerged. So, this is what the historic dilemma is: we have all these qualities that were evolved during the suppression of male dominance that are now somewhat at loggerheads with the tendency of society in a situation of re-established male dominance. The paleolithic situation was orgiastic and this made it impossible for men to trace lines of male paternity, consequently there was no concept of 'my children' for men. It was 'our children' meaning 'we, the group.' This orgiastic style worked into the effects of higher doses of psilocybin to create a situation of frequent boundary dissolution. That's what sexuality is, on one level, about and it's what psychedelics, on another level, are about. With the termination of this orgiastic, mushroom using style of existence, a very neurotic and repressive social style emerged which is now worldwide and typical of western civilization.


[/ QUOTE ]

[madnak]

You seem to be assuming exclusivity and basic gender roles. Why not assume promiscuity and dynamism?

[hmkpoker]

uhhhh...what if the females want to have multiple parters too?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
here's a treat.

Ready?

McKenna's "Stoned Ape" theory of human evolution (http://users.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/McKenna/Evolution/theory.html)

[ QUOTE ]

NH: Can you briefly explain the theory you put forth in Food of the Gods?

Terence McKenna: The primate tendency to form dominance heirarchies was temporarily interrupted for about 100,000 years by the psilocybin in the paleolithic diet. This behavioral style of male dominance was chemically interrupted by psilocybin in the diet, so it allowed the style of social organization called partnership to emerge, and that that occured during the period when language, altruism, planning, moral values, esthetics, music and so forth -- everything associated with humanness -- emerged during that period. About 12,000 years ago, the mushrooms left the human diet because they were no longer available, due to climatological change and the previous tendency to form dominance heirarchies re-emerged. So, this is what the historic dilemma is: we have all these qualities that were evolved during the suppression of male dominance that are now somewhat at loggerheads with the tendency of society in a situation of re-established male dominance. The paleolithic situation was orgiastic and this made it impossible for men to trace lines of male paternity, consequently there was no concept of 'my children' for men. It was 'our children' meaning 'we, the group.' This orgiastic style worked into the effects of higher doses of psilocybin to create a situation of frequent boundary dissolution. That's what sexuality is, on one level, about and it's what psychedelics, on another level, are about. With the termination of this orgiastic, mushroom using style of existence, a very neurotic and repressive social style emerged which is now worldwide and typical of western civilization.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...he and Sharkey need evolution lessons

[Mr. Now]

Mr. Now notes that evolution is a term used to describe a theory, and that thoeries by nature are often wrong.

Mr. Now does not subscribe to nor does he defend, theories.

Mr. Now notices that 'evolution' and 'stoned-ape' are theories originating from men of learning and curiousity.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Now does not subscribe to nor does he defend, theories.


[/ QUOTE ] Except, of course, the ones that you just openly stated you subscribed to, and the ones you presupposed in your earlier post.

[madnak]

Mr. Now is a smart guy, but I think he bases his beliefs more on his value system than on reason.

[Mr. Now]

Mr. Now thanks you for your highly complimentary reply.

Certainly Mr. Now, at any given point, holds a set of current beliefs.

One such belief is that values derive from beliefs, rather than the other way around.

The set of beliefs currently held by Mr. Now are continuously subject to change. This is learning.

[Mr. Now]

Mr. Now sometimes goes a little oveboard in bringing theories of interest to attention, on 2+2.

Mr. Now notices that nation-states that scale up tend to have beliefs, values and behaviors that strongly support "1 wife to a man" cultural customs. These social norms seem to strongly suppress the natural order of male-female dynamics.

For example, "serial monogamy", concubines, and mistresses all become part of the actual behavioral landscape in most societies that norm "1 wife to a man" in the cultural code.

Two things Mr. Now strongly values are discovery, and learning.

[madnak]

But things like polyamorous groups and promiscuous sex also become more common in developed nations.

You're definitely more likely to see standard one-male-to-many-females polygamy in a less developed nation. But you're more likely to see 3 men and 3 women in an open poly household in developed nations.

[Mr. Now]

This is a very interesting point being made here.

Now, we are getting somewhere.

Can you provide more personal insight on this? How old is polyarmory, etc? Does it have any historical precedent whatsoever, in world history? What are the implications in your view for nations and societies, in terms of societal fitness to compete globally? Etc.

I realize the term can mean many things now, and many may not be familiar with it, so if you can refer to a specific definition when answering, doing so may tend sharpen the focus of the discussion that follows.

Polyamory- candidate definitions (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&amp;hl=en&amp;q=define%3Apolyamory&amp;btnG=Go ogle+Search)

[madnak]

I suppose I'll define it in a broad sense. Either nonexclusive relationships or relationships in which every partner has at least one other partner. Typical polygyny wouldn't qualify based on my definition because each woman is only allowed to have sex with one man. Although I suppose if they were bisexual and screwed one another that could be an exception.

In general I'd like to say that it's just relationships where each partner is treated as an equal, but I know there are many BDSM arrangements with master/slave or dominant/submissive hierarchies that I would definitely consider polyamorous. But consent is an important component.

Polyamory is almost certainly as old as the human race, there's strong evidence on every front that we're a relatively promiscuous species. That's based on general dimorphism, genital size, psychological studies, paternity tests, brain chemistry, history and more.

Personally I think general polyamory has a positive economic effect, but I'm one of those crazies who believes freedom in general makes a society more productive. Assuming the gender ratios are equal overall, I don't believe there is any problem. It's a strange question because the kind of "competition" you're looking for seems to be a bit different than the kind of "competition" I'm talking about. I believe power in the modern world comes from market vitality and productivity. And I think when people can do whatever they want, the market benefits.

This is all related to poly as a viable alternative mating strategy. If poly were to become the standard, I can't begin to speculate on what would happen. A lot of our current social structure has to do with monogamous mating rituals. I don't think it's good for any particular relationship configuration to be seen as "normal" or as the standard. Marginalizing people for what they do just causes internal conflicts and wastes resources.