The Sexual Cartel

Tom M

I believe that there exists a sexual cartel.

The members of this cartel are a subsection of women. The purpose of this cartel is to engineer a situation whereby they can yield great power from their sexuality. When men believe sex is scarce these women can yield power over men, they can boss around their boyfriends /husbands etc. if the boyfriend/husband does something she doesn't like, all she has to do is the "silent treatment" or generally be moody. The man will then know his chances of sex are slim to none. He will learn to obey or suffer the consequences.

In order for this to work they must ensure as many men as possible think that sex is highly scarce.

Therefore they must make men think that they aren't very interested in sex, so they must deny that they masturbate and deny the majority or all of their one night stands etc. you must also hide the fact that women are just as likely to cheat as men and have even "filthier" minds when it comes to sex.

There are however threats to the sexual cartel, these must be policed to ensure the cartel maintains it's power. Women who openly engage in promiscuous behaviour are a serious threat to the cartel. The more of these women there are the less power the cartel will have. In order to deter women from engaging in such openly promiscuous behaviour the cartel pours scorn on them. Admonishes them, labels them as sluts and sling rhetoric at them such as "they don't respect themselves". They even socially exclude these "sluts" and possibly even bully them.

Prostitution is another threat to the cartel although a not as bad as "sluts" because at least the men are made to pay for sex.
Prostitutes are still a threat though as they are a form of competition, men must never be allowed to think that prostitutes are actually attracted to them, ( which is probably the case most of the time) as men must think sex is scarce, so it's important to remind men that prostitutes are only doing it for the money and that there is no attraction from the prostitutes to their clients.

"Players" would be another threat to the cartel as they generally won't fall for the cartel's ruse. They know how much women love sex and know how to attract women. The percentage of players in society must be kept to a bare minimum, as the more players there are the less power the cartel yields. So if a non player guy asks a woman for advice on how to do better with women he must only be fed advice which fits the cartels agenda, ie allow a woman to control him. He must not be told the true nature of a woman's attraction. He must never be told the truth that doing what a woman tells you is actually a turn off. Frame doormat behaviours in men as kindness etc. Describe actual attractive behaviours in men in derisory terms and pretend that they are actually turn offs. Dominant men for example are "mysogynistic", "assholes" "don't respect women" etc

Now as members of the sexual with strong sexual needs ( sssh, don't tell anyone), you can have sex with the "players"/ attractive men but you must keep it a secret, in the event you are found having sex with "players" mitigate this by saying you are attracted to his nice qualities. Say he is really a nice guy underneath it all for example.

Members of the sexual cartel can discuss sex honestly with women, "players" and gay men, but never with the rest.

What do you think of this?

Femme_Fatale

Tom M wrote: »

What do you think of this?

I think you're spot-on. Now I have to say I don't know how all the women communicate secretly with each other, but I'd put money on telekinesis. Or maybe witchcraft!

At the request of several people I'm reopening this thread. If it turns into a mess it'll immediately be closed again.

alyssum

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I think you're spot-on. Now I have to say I don't know how all the women communicate secretly with each other, but I'd put money on telekinesis. Or maybe witchcraft!

You are just making fun because you do not have a valid argument. If you do post it


His argument about players is what the players say.i.e that women do like sex but do not admit it and wheter it is right or wrong it is an interesting debate.

One could argue there is some truth in what he says re prostitutes and womens attitudes to them

28064212

alyssum wrote: »

You are just making fun because you do not have a valid argument. If you do post it

They're making fun because the opening argument is absurd. There is a valid discussion to be had around attitudes towards sex, but the OP did not start that discussion. The OP claims there is a large group of women who have a formal agreement (i.e. a cartel) about how to act in order to secure certain behaviour. That belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum

srsly78

Women are indeed involved in a conspiracy going back to the dawn of humanity - that of making sure the species survives. Meanwhile the men perform their own role as dictated by evolutionary biology - acting in a disruptive fashion (and as studs ofc).

So pretty much the same as with many other species then? Maybe the whole thing is a billion year conspiracy by alien parasites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_Hypothesis

Wibbs

28064212 wrote: »

They're making fun because the opening argument is absurd. There is a valid discussion to be had around attitudes towards sex, but the OP did not start that discussion. The OP claims there is a large group of women who have a formal agreement (i.e. a cartel) about how to act in order to secure certain behaviour. That belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum

Indeed it does. One might exchange the near paranoid cartel nonsense with societal pressures and as srsly78 referenced evolutionary biology.

On the latter front humans are quite different to the other great apes in a number of respects. For a start women hide their fertility status and are fertile most of the time, which might suggest a "ruse" to keep males interested or kept guessing for good biological reasons.

Tom M wrote:

In order for this to work they must ensure as many men as possible think that sex is highly scarce.

This I have always found an interesting one. Not the conspiracy nonsense, but the idea in many mens heads that sex is scarce. However I would say that's societies selection pressure at work, not women, or men.

The rest is the usual PUA stuff all too common online. There are some small points to be made, but these ejjits run with it too far. To the point of daftness.

smcgiff

I think you'll find that it has been a male dominated organisation that has dictated that sex is dirty - the Church. Although, that might fall under the 'Gay' clause you inserted perhaps.

There's elements of the OP's post worthy of exploring further, but taken in its entirety it's only fit for the conspiracy forum.

alyssum

28064212 wrote: »

They're making fun because the opening argument is absurd. There is a valid discussion to be had around attitudes towards sex, but the OP did not start that discussion. The OP claims there is a large group of women who have a formal agreement (i.e. a cartel) about how to act in order to secure certain behaviour. That belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum

then why hide behind fun. i did not take it to be a formal agreement when he said cartel though i know what cartel means. i understood him to be just using the expression for want of a better one

28064212

alyssum wrote: »

then why hide behind fun

Ridicule ≠ hiding

alyssum

28064212 wrote: »

Ridicule ≠ hiding

??? what is ≠

28064212

alyssum wrote: »

??? what is ≠

Not equal

alyssum

28064212 wrote: »

Not equal

i think t is. it is a type of strawman

28064212

alyssum wrote: »

i think t is. it is a type of strawman

It's really not. The OP hypothesised that a large group of women were involved in a conspiracy. Femme_Fatale ridiculed them by querying how such a conspiracy might be organised. It's directly attacking the absurdity of the original position

alyssum

28064212 wrote: »

It's really not. The OP hypothesised that a large group of women were involved in a conspiracy. Femme_Fatale ridiculed them by querying how such a conspiracy might be organised. It's directly attacking the absurdity of the original position

I disagree i think it is pretty weak counter argument

28064212

alyssum wrote: »

I disagree i think it is pretty weak counter argument

Oh it's pretty weak all right. However, given the absence of any legitimate argument in the OP, it's all that's needed to completely destroy it

Femme_Fatale

alyssum wrote: »

I disagree i think it is pretty weak counter argument

It's not meant to be a counter-argument, it's meant to show up how utterly ludicrous what the site-banned OP has said (a global cartel between women - really?) is.

In a nutshell, the post translates as "Women are bitches for not fancying me and giving me the sex I'm entitled to, therefore I'll come up with some outlandish theory rather than accepting they don't fancy me and working on my self confidence and improving where I'm going wrong."

alyssum

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's not meant to be a counter-argument, it's meant to show up how utterly ludicrous what the site-banned OP has said (a global cartel between women - really?) is.

In a nutshell, the post translates as "Women are bitches for not fancying me and giving me the sex I'm entitled to, therefore I'll come up with some outlandish theory rather than accepting they don't fancy me and working on my self confidence and improving where I'm going wrong."

i could be wrong i understood him to only use cartel as a for want of better word
anyway self confidence won't make them fancy him if they don't
he is site banned?

Femme_Fatale

alyssum wrote: »

he is site banned?

Yeh. Probably because of all the thinly-veiled misogynistic stuff he was posting. It's hard seeing that stuff being posted if you're a woman. I know you can avoid it, but it's only avoidable to a point.

Someone (male or female) being comfortable in their own skin is attractive.

alyssum

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yeh. Probably because of all the thinly-veiled misogynistic stuff he was posting. It's hard seeing that stuff being posted if you're a woman. I know you can avoid it, but it's only avoidable to a point.

Someone (male or female) being comfortable in their own skin is attractive.

i have not seen the others stuff

in case there is any truth in it generally not aimed at you personally?

Someone (male or female) being comfortable in their own skin is attractive

not necessarily

mawk

Surely it's more of an oligopoly than a cartel.
Language matters when you are trying to look sane

mawk

Surely it's more of an oligopoly than a cartel.
Language matters when you are trying to look sane

Femme_Fatale

alyssum wrote: »

in case there is any truth?

No, because hatred and making baseless assumptions and stating notions/feelings as fact isn't the way to go about things. If a person has a controversial opinion, it's not what they say, it's the way they say it.

I would say it's more that there isn't any truth to it that gets women's backs up.

28064212

alyssum wrote: »

i could be wrong i understood him to only use cartel as a for want of better word

He uses the word cartel, and then goes on to describe a formal arrangement, where women actively discuss how to use their sexuality to give them power. That's a cartel. And it is an absurd argument.

Are you defending the argument? Do you think there is a subsection of women who have an agreement to keep sex scarce in order to subjugate men?

alyssum

28064212 wrote: »

He uses the word cartel, and then goes on to describe a formal arrangement, where women actively discuss how to use their sexuality to give them power. That's a cartel. And it is an absurd argument.

Are you defending the argument? Do you think there is a subsection of women who have an agreement to keep sex scarce in order to subjugate men?

I do not know. I understood him to mean women and their friends as distinct from, say, a ltd company or more formal arrangement as would be in a conspiracy

Tom M

Tom M wrote: »

What do you think of this?

I think they're just not that into you.

mawk

Surely it's more of an oligopoly than a cartel.
Language matters when you are trying to look sane

mawk

mawk wrote: »

Surely it's more of an oligopoly than a cartel.
Language matters when you are trying to look sane

So does repetition.

johnnyskeleton

How do sharia law societies for into this theory?

Wibbs

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How do sharia law societies for into this theory?

One might argue that such patriarchal societies are controlling women's reproductive options precisely because they believe much of what the OP was suggesting.

I think the debate is being mired down by the use of the word "cartel", suggesting a daft conspiracy of women behind closed doors deciding this stuff to keep poor men in some sort of sexual chains. If we dismiss that for the daftness it is, what about other aspects of the topic?

IE is there an inbuilt evolution selected benefit for women to restrict reproductive access? Clearly there are differences in reproductive strategies between the sexes. Women have a limited number of offspring they can have compared to men. They also have far more to lose in the very real dangers of pregnancy and birth(in the past it was by far the commonest cause of death for women of reproductive age). Plus they require resources while in the late stages of pregnancy and until offspring are weaned(or at least have done for the vast majority of time humans have been around). A man can get a woman pregnant and walk away, a woman who is pregnant can't walk away. It makes good sense for women to be more sexually "fussy" and to restrict sexual access to "suitable" men and even to keep said man guessing/interested until the child is weaned*.

The background meme of "sex is hard to get if you're a man" would naturally be of benefit to women in this. The scarcer any commodity appears to be the higher value it is and the "seller" of such a commodity would be of higher value too. I'd call this the "De Beers" effect. Diamonds are actually quite common, but because De Beers restricts the numbers getting to market they have assumed a higher value than they actually have. Of course De Beers do this deliberately. Women are not sitting in fancy boardrooms discussing restricting sex. :pac::pac:

Regarding patriarchal societies like Sharia. Such societies have a great fear of women's sexuality and reproduction, so seek to control it. This has been a common thread in many societies since the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago. When property and land become such large commodities, the passing on of same across family generations becomes important. Doubly so for males as until the last few decades no man could be absolutely sure any child was his, whereas women always knew. "Bastard" and "Cuckold" were very insulting terms. So how does such a patriarchal society reduce this fear? Control women's sexuality and reproduction. Marry virgins(which suddenly becomes a desired state) and hide them away, restrict their movements thereby increasing a mans chances that any offspring will be his.

That all said the area of sexuality/reproduction in humans is incredibly complex. We're about the most complex species there is in this. Throw in reliable contraception in the last few decades and all bets are off really.





*Some have even suggested that humans have a reproductive cycle of about 3-4 years. A "honeymoon period" which ensures interest in both sexes to keep high long enough for any offspring to be weaned.

Femme_Fatale

Wibbs wrote: »

One might argue that such patriarchal societies are controlling women's reproductive options precisely because they believe much of what the OP was suggesting.

For me it's the most frightening aspect of suspicion and hostility towards women as a whole.

MaxWig

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

For me it's the most frightening aspect of suspicion and hostility towards women as a whole.

Well obv the 'cartel' thing is beyond silly.

But there is a belief out there among many that women do not enjoy sex.

I have friends, grown intelligent men, who appreciate that women enjoy sex, but can't seem to get their head around the fact that they are actively seeking it, that they contain the same in-built desires as men.

I'm sure there is a pressure on young women to perpetuate this myth, and that slut-shaming plays it's part.

But the result is the kind of crazy jibber-jabber displayed in the OP's suggestion (although that is extreme).

desertcircus

There are few things as depressing as seeing an elaborate and lunatic rationalisation of crass misogyny.

MaxWig

desertcircus wrote: »

There are few things as depressing as seeing an elaborate and lunatic rationalisation of crass misogyny.

Not sure if that was aimed at my comment.

But there are very few aspects of misogyny that cannot be rationalised.

As is the case with racism.

Most human motivations are completely rational.

desertcircus

MaxWig wrote: »

Not sure if that was aimed at my comment.

But there are very few aspects of misogyny that cannot be rationalised.

As is the case with racism.

Most human motivations are completely rational.

It was aimed at the OP.

But misogyny is not rational; neither is racism.

MaxWig

desertcircus wrote: »

It was aimed at the OP.

But misogyny is not rational; neither is racism.

My apologies.

We'll agree to disagree on the latter.

I imagine we are coming to same answer from different angles

Wibbs

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

For me it's the most frightening aspect of suspicion and hostility towards women as a whole.

Oh I agree FF, but on the other hand I'm interested in what causes that suspicion and hostility in the first place. We can even see that reflected in our physical bodies adapted over aeons. Look at the other great apes. Male gorillas operate harems and defend them vigourously. They have tiny genitals, because they don't need any bigger as for males it's a "captive market" reproductively speaking. Chimps have bigger willies and huge testes, because they don't operate harems and female chimps are freer to choose mates(and do so), so the male chimp has to adapt to this by upping how many "shots" he fires.

Humans are somewhere in the middle. Human males have the biggest willies among great apes but medium sized testes. So this suggests in our evolutionary history that human females were more trustworthy than chimps(and selected for bigger penises), but less than gorillas. They also selected to hide their most fertile time and became fertile year round.

Interestingly, along with major genome changes in dietary adaptations in the last 10,000 years, male sperm production genes also show rapid adaptations, likely because there was more of us in smaller spaces. Like I said a very complex and interesting subject for debate.

desertcircus wrote: »

But misogyny is not rational; neither is racism.

What's scary and what history has shown us that even the most reprehensible ideology can be made to have it's own quite logical rationale. Even among otherwise very intelligent people.

KyussBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree FF, but on the other hand I'm interested in what causes that suspicion and hostility in the first place. We can even see that reflected in our physical bodies adapted over aeons. Look at the other great apes. Male gorillas operate harems and defend them vigourously. They have tiny genitals, because they don't need any bigger as for males it's a "captive market" reproductively speaking. Chimps have bigger willies and huge testes, because they don't operate harems and female chimps are freer to choose mates(and do so), so the male chimp has to adapt to this by upping how many "shots" he fires.

Humans are somewhere in the middle. Human males have the biggest willies among great apes but medium sized testes. So this suggests in our evolutionary history that human females were more trustworthy than chimps(and selected for bigger penises), but less than gorillas. They also selected to hide their most fertile time and became fertile year round.

Interestingly, along with major genome changes in dietary adaptations in the last 10,000 years, male sperm production genes also show rapid adaptations, likely because there was more of us in smaller spaces. Like I said a very complex and interesting subject for debate.

On the other side of this though, that doesn't suggest any psychological awareness of competing for paternity/fatherhood which would describe the suspicion/hostility, that can be put almost purely down to evolutionary adaptations.

Since we have 'medium' size testes vs gorilla's small testes, that actually suggests women are more promiscuous, though I wouldn't say this has anything to do with 'trustworthiness' with women though - that would be something more determined by what society (or rather, the partners) regard as 'trust' during that time.

Arguably (though I am not up to spec on all the details of this argument) female sexual fidelity becoming associated with 'trustworthiness' (i.e. monogamous relationships and/or patriarchal society) is something that became more important only in agricultural times, and became more cemented by religious institutions, and is about ready to be discarded with sociologically (no longer has a purpose - especially now that sex doesn't have to lead to reproduction).

KyussBishop

Splitting this into another post, as it's a whole separate point in its own right:
I think a lot of that suspicion/hostility is more caused by prevailing attitudes/traditions in society (which are on their way out), than much else.
What is interesting about that, is I think it probably has less to do with sex overall, and more to do with social/political/economic power over other people (and that affecting specific genders, is only a secondary consequence of it, with the primary goal being power).

The more I read about it, the more the thought buds in my mind, that women may be held down as just another 'divide and conquer' type strategy, to allow greater power/control over society (make females more dependent on men - create a divide in power in society, make sex/reproduction an issue of 'haves and have nots' that has to be competed over more - create a divide in power in society, this time affecting men more).

People benefiting from these power divides now, probably aren't even specifically aware of this (though if you look at some of the politically-right in the US, I'm sure some are...), it's just another lingering bit of history waiting to die out.

When you think about it, this whole 'Men vs Women' nonsense, and the fact that it is still perpetuated in society in various different (and sometimes subtle) ways, can actually be interpreted as promoting still, an 'Us vs Them' type attitude that benefits the division of power (and thus concentration of greater power in fewer hands) in society.

Wibbs

KyussBishop wrote: »

On the other side of this though, that doesn't suggest any psychological awareness of competing for paternity/fatherhood which would describe the suspicion/hostility, that can be put almost purely down to evolutionary adaptations.

Oh of course it's not conscious/deliberate.

Since we have 'medium' size testes vs gorilla's small testes, that actually suggests women are more promiscuous,

It also suggests men are too, otherwise where would all these "promiscuous" women be going?

though I wouldn't say this has anything to do with 'trustworthiness' with women though - that would be something more determined by what society (or rather, the partners) regard as 'trust' during that time.

It's not that based on culture or time. Partner fidelity is a very strong undercurrent going through pretty much any culture, past or present you can think of and since the male of the species couldn't be sure(until very recently) if any offspring were definitely his, this undercurrent of trust was usually more aimed at women. Though men considered promiscuous didn't escape. Suspicion of cuckolding another man could result in societal exclusion, even death.

Arguably (though I am not up to spec on all the details of this argument) female sexual fidelity becoming associated with 'trustworthiness' (i.e. monogamous relationships and/or patriarchal society) is something that became more important only in agricultural times,

It was always there, as can be seen among tribal cultures today, it was more codified after the agricultural revolution alright.

and became more cemented by religious institutions,

Depends entirely on the religion. The Abrahamic type is but one theology and but one philosophy on sexual and gender relations.

and is about ready to be discarded with sociologically (no longer has a purpose - especially now that sex doesn't have to lead to reproduction).

Great in theory, but not really. Sex didn't always have to result in pregnancy. Indeed of all the great apes save for the Bonobo, humans have sex the most for purposes beyond reproduction. Other apes only have sex when females are displaying signs of fertility. If anything sex in humans has always led to reproduction in the minority of cases of sexual contact. Plus while we have many choices today of reliable contraception, contraception itself is a very old practice. Some tribal cultures embed a pebble in the penis(yea :eek:) that closes off the urethra, except when deliberately opened up for voiding and reproduction. The Roman and Greeks actually caused a plant to go extinct because they thought it had contraceptive uses(among others uses), so the sheer demand doomed it's fate. So the notion, however popular, that somehow there is about to be a complete shakeup in sexual matters is a tad premature. A reset of the mechanism to pre uptight christian mores in christian cultures yes, but that's but one culture in the world today. EG the Islamic world mentioned earlier, is made up of over a billion and a half Muslims who would have a different angle on the whole thing.

KyussBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh of course it's not conscious/deliberate.

It also suggests men are too, otherwise where would all these "promiscuous" women be going? It's not that based on culture or time. Partner fidelity is a very strong undercurrent going through pretty much any culture, past or present you can think of and since the male of the species couldn't be sure(until very recently) if any offspring were definitely his, this undercurrent of trust was usually more aimed at women.

Though men considered promiscuous didn't escape. Suspicion of cuckolding another man could result in societal exclusion, even death.

Well, the issue of 'paternity certainty', i.e. caring whether or not you are the father of a child, is itself a societal creation - there is precedent of society in the past and present (such as the Mosuo in China/Tibet) who were not concerned about this, with the entire community raising the children (there's a great, albeit controversial, book about this whole related issue, called Sex at Dawn, which I just read recently).

I think that paternity certainty is primarily only an issue forced upon society, when resources like food or other things necessary for survival, are made scarce or artificially scarce (because then the family, particularly father, has to put more effort into taking care of the children - more children meaning more work/poverty/scarcity).

The agricultural revolution arguably helped create a lot of this scarcity, by ballooning population levels and politicizing both land and access to food as a result.
Interestingly, this is arguably much the same today: we still have to work our asses off to get by for the most part, but there is no scarcity anymore, so there is no logical reason left for people being forced to work so much, or for society to be structured in a way that makes 'paternity certainty' important in any way (I think it is still that way, to provide a minority of people with power over the rest of society).

So yes...sorry to go on. This is quite an interesting topic the more I think about it, and it seems to tie into a crapload of other political/economic/power issues in society; I wonder if part of the reason these issues are still controversial, is because they reveal so much about how backwards/unfair the power structure is in society (between the wealthy vs poor, not between genders, which looks to be maintained more as a distraction or 'divide and conquer' strategy).

Wibbs wrote: »

It was always there, as can be seen among tribal cultures today, it was more codified after the agricultural revolution alright.

That isn't true though, because there are plenty of promiscuous tribal cultures, such as the !Kung San and many Amazonian tribes, plus more I could probably find (just is hard to read up on them all at the same place).

Wibbs wrote: »

Great in theory, but not really. Sex didn't always have to result in pregnancy. Indeed of all the great apes save for the Bonobo, humans have sex the most for purposes beyond reproduction. Other apes only have sex when females are displaying signs of fertility. If anything sex in humans has always led to reproduction in the minority of cases of sexual contact. Plus while we have many choices today of reliable contraception, contraception itself is a very old practice. Some tribal cultures embed a pebble in the penis(yea :eek:) that closes off the urethra, except when deliberately opened up for voiding and reproduction. The Roman and Greeks actually caused a plant to go extinct because they thought it had contraceptive uses(among others uses), so the sheer demand doomed it's fate. So the notion, however popular, that somehow there is about to be a complete shakeup in sexual matters is a tad premature. A reset of the mechanism to pre uptight christian mores in christian cultures yes, but that's but one culture in the world today. EG the Islamic world mentioned earlier, is made up of over a billion and a half Muslims who would have a different angle on the whole thing.

As you say, except for the Bonobo Bonobo's are far more closely related to humans genetically, than Gorilla's are.

What is there left to stop such a disintegration/shakeup of monogamous sexual standards though?

I agree there are a lot of societal/religious hangovers in various parts of the world, and I am (slowly) getting the budding impression that it's a big part of power-politics in society (not one between mens and women either, but it gets portrayed that way to distract from the bigger inequalities/issues), but as those issues get resolved, I don't see what there is to stop a complete transformation.

MaxWig

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well, the issue of 'paternity certainty', i.e. caring whether or not you are the father of a child, is itself a societal creation - there is precedent of society in the past and present (such as the Mosuo in China/Tibet) who were not concerned about this, with the entire community raising the children (there's a great, albeit controversial, book about this whole related issue, called Sex at Dawn, which I just read recently).

I think that paternity certainty is primarily only an issue forced upon society, when resources like food or other things necessary for survival, are made scarce or artificially scarce (because then the family, particularly father, has to put more effort into taking care of the children - more children meaning more work/poverty/scarcity).

The agricultural revolution arguably helped create a lot of this scarcity, by ballooning population levels and politicizing both land and access to food as a result.
Interestingly, this is arguably much the same today: we still have to work our asses off to get by for the most part, but there is no scarcity anymore, so there is no logical reason left for people being forced to work so much, or for society to be structured in a way that makes 'paternity certainty' important in any way (I think it is still that way, to provide a minority of people with power over the rest of society).

So yes...sorry to go on. This is quite an interesting topic the more I think about it, and it seems to tie into a crapload of other political/economic/power issues in society; I wonder if part of the reason these issues are still controversial, is because they reveal so much about how backwards/unfair the power structure is in society (between the wealthy vs poor, not between genders, which looks to be maintained more as a distraction or 'divide and conquer' strategy).


That isn't true though, because there are plenty of promiscuous tribal cultures, such as the !Kung San and many Amazonian tribes, plus more I could probably find (just is hard to read up on them all at the same place).


As you say, except for the Bonobo Bonobo's are far more closely related to humans genetically, than Gorilla's are.

What is there left to stop such a disintegration/shakeup of monogamous sexual standards though?

I agree there are a lot of societal/religious hangovers in various parts of the world, and I am (slowly) getting the budding impression that it's a big part of power-politics in society (not one between mens and women either, but it gets portrayed that way to distract from the bigger inequalities/issues), but as those issues get resolved, I don't see what there is to stop a complete transformation.

There is lots of evidence to prove that polygyny was the dominant sexual practice in our history.
It is estimated that females have passed on genes in a ratio of 2:1 compared to males.

But that doesn't say anything about what is the most beneficial sexual standard in the present day.

Certainly given our current systems of family law and inheritance, I can't see a transformation of the kind you're speaking of anytime soon.

Wibbs

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well, the issue of 'paternity certainty', i.e. caring whether or not you are the father of a child, is itself a societal creation - there is precedent of society in the past and present (such as the Mosuo in China/Tibet) who were not concerned about this, with the entire community raising the children (there's a great, albeit controversial, book about this whole related issue, called Sex at Dawn, which I just read recently).

Oh do not get me started on what passes for research and conclusions in that book.

The Musuo are often dragged into discussions on this topic(and some branches of feminism), but with the usual inaccuracies. 1) the entire community don't raise the kids. Children most often reside with their mothers. 2) paternity is of no concern. Not to the degree of some societies, however children usually know who their father is and for a woman to not know who the father of her various children is is considered well dodgy. 3) they're not a matriarchal society as some would suggest, more a matrilineal(sp) one(in pre christian Ireland it was matrilineal at times too, but no way was it matriarchal). Inheritance and names pass through the female line, but the men wield the political power. Some have even suggested that this entire way of life was a way of the patriarchal rulling classes keeping control of the peasant class, the Musuo, by imposing a matrilineal construct from above. That way no line of males would arise to oppose them.

I think that paternity certainty is primarily only an issue forced upon society, when resources like food or other things necessary for survival, are made scarce or artificially scarce (because then the family, particularly father, has to put more effort into taking care of the children - more children meaning more work/poverty/scarcity).

Naturally such pressures will influence things, however when we look at biology we find some interesting features. EG if a man and woman are separated for a time, the next time they have sex he ejaculates more sperm and healthier sperm with it. Which would suggest a competitive angle, a concern another male may have been in play.

The agricultural revolution arguably helped create a lot of this scarcity, by ballooning population levels and politicizing both land and access to food as a result.

Agricultural societies have less scarcity in general, as they can store food, hence they can have a ballooning population.

That isn't true though, because there are plenty of promiscuous tribal cultures, such as the !Kung San and many Amazonian tribes, plus more I could probably find (just is hard to read up on them all at the same place).

The San are not "promiscuous". They have a healthier attitude to pre marriage age sexual play and divorce was open to both genders, however playing the field by either gender when still married is frowned upon. Amazonian tribes again can vary. In some rape, even gang rape is accepted without much ado, as is bride stealing, but again adultery is frowned upon and can even lead to death. There have been remarkably few cultures in human history where adultery even promiscuity is tolerated.

As you say, except for the Bonobo Bonobo's are far more closely related to humans genetically, than Gorilla's are.

Pretty much the same as our distance from chimps. Still very different to humans though. The Bonobo/human connection gained favour over the chimp/human connection in the 60/70's. They were considered a better, more dare I say it politically correct(and even feminist) close relative compared to the patriarchal violent chimps. And of course they had sex all over the place and were caring and sharing. We preferred that particular mirror being held up. However the real concrete research shows just as many diffs between them and us and chimps and us. We're a very different great ape to the rest. Indeed wild canid family groups show more similarities to hunter gatherer groups than any great ape(and we understand canid communication and they understand human communication better than we understand ape communications). Humans are actually far more like wolves with knives than chimps with knives.

What is there left to stop such a disintegration/shakeup of monogamous sexual standards though?

Our basic evolutionary makeup. IE we're serial quasi long term monogamists who are adaptable enough to embrace other practices if the environment requires it. EG life monogamy, Polygyny and even Polyandry though the latter is the rarest.

I agree there are a lot of societal/religious hangovers in various parts of the world, and I am (slowly) getting the budding impression that it's a big part of power-politics in society (not one between mens and women either, but it gets portrayed that way to distract from the bigger inequalities/issues), but as those issues get resolved, I don't see what there is to stop a complete transformation.

Transformation into what though?

Stick Monkey

Tom M wrote: »

I believe that there exists a sexual cartel.

The members of this cartel are a subsection of women. The purpose of this cartel is to engineer a situation whereby they can yield great power from their sexuality. When men believe sex is scarce these women can yield power over men, they can boss around their boyfriends /husbands etc. if the boyfriend/husband does something she doesn't like, all she has to do is the "silent treatment" or generally be moody. The man will then know his chances of sex are slim to none. He will learn to obey or suffer the consequences.

In order for this to work they must ensure as many men as possible think that sex is highly scarce.

Therefore they must make men think that they aren't very interested in sex, so they must deny that they masturbate and deny the majority or all of their one night stands etc. you must also hide the fact that women are just as likely to cheat as men and have even "filthier" minds when it comes to sex.

There are however threats to the sexual cartel, these must be policed to ensure the cartel maintains it's power. Women who openly engage in promiscuous behaviour are a serious threat to the cartel. The more of these women there are the less power the cartel will have. In order to deter women from engaging in such openly promiscuous behaviour the cartel pours scorn on them. Admonishes them, labels them as sluts and sling rhetoric at them such as "they don't respect themselves". They even socially exclude these "sluts" and possibly even bully them.

Prostitution is another threat to the cartel although a not as bad as "sluts" because at least the men are made to pay for sex.
Prostitutes are still a threat though as they are a form of competition, men must never be allowed to think that prostitutes are actually attracted to them, ( which is probably the case most of the time) as men must think sex is scarce, so it's important to remind men that prostitutes are only doing it for the money and that there is no attraction from the prostitutes to their clients.

"Players" would be another threat to the cartel as they generally won't fall for the cartel's ruse. They know how much women love sex and know how to attract women. The percentage of players in society must be kept to a bare minimum, as the more players there are the less power the cartel yields. So if a non player guy asks a woman for advice on how to do better with women he must only be fed advice which fits the cartels agenda, ie allow a woman to control him. He must not be told the true nature of a woman's attraction. He must never be told the truth that doing what a woman tells you is actually a turn off. Frame doormat behaviours in men as kindness etc. Describe actual attractive behaviours in men in derisory terms and pretend that they are actually turn offs. Dominant men for example are "mysogynistic", "assholes" "don't respect women" etc

Now as members of the sexual with strong sexual needs ( sssh, don't tell anyone), you can have sex with the "players"/ attractive men but you must keep it a secret, in the event you are found having sex with "players" mitigate this by saying you are attracted to his nice qualities. Say he is really a nice guy underneath it all for example.

Members of the sexual cartel can discuss sex honestly with women, "players" and gay men, but never with the rest.

What do you think of this?

How would incessant masturbatory habits fit into your theory ?

MaxWig

Stick Monkey wrote: »

How would incessant masturbatory habits fit into your theory ?

Sounds like you're a polygamist without a cause!

KyussBishop

MaxWig wrote: »

There is lots of evidence to prove that polygyny was the dominant sexual practice in our history.
It is estimated that females have passed on genes in a ratio of 2:1 compared to males.

But that doesn't say anything about what is the most beneficial sexual standard in the present day.

Certainly given our current systems of family law and inheritance, I can't see a transformation of the kind you're speaking of anytime soon.

True, it's certainly not catered for well in the current legal system, though that again is a societal constraint that could be changed; you're right also, that while the past is somewhat useful for dispelling myths about what was 'natural' in the past, none of the past really determines what is ideal today.

KyussBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh do not get me started on what passes for research and conclusions in that book.

The Musuo are often dragged into discussions on this topic(and some branches of feminism), but with the usual inaccuracies. 1) the entire community don't raise the kids. Children most often reside with their mothers. 2) paternity is of no concern. Not to the degree of some societies, however children usually know who their father is and for a woman to not know who the father of her various children is is considered well dodgy. 3) they're not a matriarchal society as some would suggest, more a matrilineal(sp) one(in pre christian Ireland it was matrilineal at times too, but no way was it matriarchal). Inheritance and names pass through the female line, but the men wield the political power. Some have even suggested that this entire way of life was a way of the patriarchal rulling classes keeping control of the peasant class, the Musuo, by imposing a matrilineal construct from above. That way no line of males would arise to oppose them.

True, it does come across more as an entertaining rather than academic read an interesting alternate perspective to test out in debate though.

True yes, the children are raised with the mothers family (which is kind of natural I guess), though (from what I read) usually with help from immediate family and the wider community; the wider history you mention of the Mosuo is quite interesting there, didn't know about much of that.

I may have to read up on this more to get a better idea of other non-monogamous societies.

Wibbs wrote: »

The San are not "promiscuous". They have a healthier attitude to pre marriage age sexual play and divorce was open to both genders, however playing the field by either gender when still married is frowned upon. Amazonian tribes again can vary. In some rape, even gang rape is accepted without much ado, as is bride stealing, but again adultery is frowned upon and can even lead to death. There have been remarkably few cultures in human history where adultery even promiscuity is tolerated.

I'll bow to greater knowledge here, as I just don't know enough about the topic yet; that's definitely true of a lot of Amazonian tribes, though I'm still curious about those few exceptions to the standard knowledge on the subject.

Wibbs wrote: »

Pretty much the same as our distance from chimps. Still very different to humans though. The Bonobo/human connection gained favour over the chimp/human connection in the 60/70's. They were considered a better, more dare I say it politically correct(and even feminist) close relative compared to the patriarchal violent chimps. And of course they had sex all over the place and were caring and sharing. We preferred that particular mirror being held up. However the real concrete research shows just as many diffs between them and us and chimps and us. We're a very different great ape to the rest. Indeed wild canid family groups show more similarities to hunter gatherer groups than any great ape(and we understand canid communication and they understand human communication better than we understand ape communications). Humans are actually far more like wolves with knives than chimps with knives.

True - to be honest anthropology, evolutionary biology/psychology and the like, seem a bit of a minefield for drawing almost any kind of accurate conclusions about human behavior/society and what is 'natural' or not, as any claims that are made seem like they would be infinitely debatable.

Wibbs wrote: »

Our basic evolutionary makeup. IE we're serial quasi long term monogamists who are adaptable enough to embrace other practices if the environment requires it. EG life monogamy, Polygyny and even Polyandry though the latter is the rarest.

Transformation into what though?

Transform into a society where monogamy (serial or not) doesn't have that much of a primary role anymore.

Trouble with making any claims one way or the other about this (especially using evolution as a base) is that it's human psychology and behavior which determines whether or not society can transform into a more non-monogamous one, and evolution can only say a limited amount about this.

Until we get a more scientific understanding of human psychology (based on actually being able to model the brain, instead of just building theories/guesses as to how our psychology works), it's hard to make claims on way or the other about how manageable this is.

Wibbs

KyussBishop wrote: »

Trouble with making any claims one way or the other about this (especially using evolution as a base) is that it's human psychology and behavior which determines whether or not society can transform into a more non-monogamous one, and evolution can only say a limited amount about this.

Well yes and no K. When I talk of evolution I include our psychology and behaviour and culture in the mix. Even if Darwin hadn't been born and we knew nada of evolution or biology, a study of history and culture would show an overwhelming tendency for humans to pair bond for mutual and reproductive advantage and that pair bond is best represented by some flavour of serial monogamy, usually ending up in some longer term pair bond. Gay folks who biologically are out of the reproductive loop also follow this trend(though obviously many have their own kids by other means).

A study of biology would show the role of substances like oxytocin in pair bonding. Even things like the migrating clitoris and loss of the penis bone might come in here*. The very act of falling in love causes all sorts of biochemical markers in people which massively select for monogamous pair bonding. And contrary to some belief romantic love was not invented by troubadours in the middle ages. Hunter gatherer tribes in the arse end of nowhere will tell you all about falling in love too. The men are often quite sweet about the whole thing too, bereft of the embarrassment found in other cultures. Interestingly those falling in love markers die down around the 3-4 year mark(in the majority), long enough to get pregnant(cos ya shag ike bunnies when first in love), carry the child to term and wean same.

Basically we're not a blank slate. That's a notion that was popular among academe for a time(politically as well as anthropologically), the old nurture/culture being stronger than nature/biology vibe(we also see this in gender studies). However the more we know, the more we see the grey area in the middle. That yes we can be quite plastic, but we do tend to follow particular trends as a pretty constant feature of being human** Take the aforementioned Musuo folks. They have so called "walking marriages". Even though they're freer than most cultures to do what they will, they still opt for serial monogamy. The only diff being they don't have a til death do us part ruling on it(though enough do stay together for many years, even life).

We even get hints of this in the record of humans that came before modern humans. Neandertals appear to have lived in small family groups, with an identical child spacing to us and in one site/case the genes seem to show a familiar pattern mammy/daddy and offspring of various ages. Go back even further(over a million years) and we have a Homo Erectus female who died from vitamin A overdose(probably ate the liver of a predator). She took many weeks to die, yet through that time someone was feeding her, taking care of her as she would have been incapacitated with pain. Her family? Possibly, though just as possibly her mate/partner. This stuff goes deep in us and it will take a lot more than a philosophical construct of some perfect sexual/reproductive society to change it.



* another interesting diff in humans not related to the bonding thing, is human females have full breasts and this is seen as attractive to men(even in cultures where they're not clothed. To a great ape this would be a major turnoff as she would appear already pregnant.

**obviously the majority, we will always have outliers and outliers are good.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote: »

IE is there an inbuilt evolution selected benefit for women to restrict reproductive access? Clearly there are differences in reproductive strategies between the sexes. Women have a limited number of offspring they can have compared to men. They also have far more to lose in the very real dangers of pregnancy and birth(in the past it was by far the commonest cause of death for women of reproductive age). Plus they require resources while in the late stages of pregnancy and until offspring are weaned(or at least have done for the vast majority of time humans have been around). A man can get a woman pregnant and walk away, a woman who is pregnant can't walk away. It makes good sense for women to be more sexually "fussy" and to restrict sexual access to "suitable" men and even to keep said man guessing/interested until the child is weaned*.

Very good post.

People tend to forget that our particular subspecies, Homo Sapien Sapien, has been around for about 200,000 years (the overall Homo Sapien group for about 500,000 years). Civilization, as we call it, where we went from being hunter-gatherers to developing permanent settlements, underpinned by agriculture and leading to law, writing, organized religion, government and so on, only occurred with the Neolithic Revolution, which began only about 10,000 years ago.

So when we look at human evolution, it's important to remember that it was formed in the context of a hunter-gatherer paradigm, which made up 95% of our history.

And what you describe is perfectly correct (at least as far as evolutionary biologists and anthropologists are concerned). Females of the species were highly disadvantaged by how we reproduce, which greatly limited their ability to provide food for themselves or their offspring. And naturally this led to a series of evolutionary strategies to allow the female to manage or control the male so that he would provide and protect her - hardly unique, as you'll find it in many other animal species, such as many species of birds and even primates, such as the bonobo.

A key piece of evidence of this is where it comes to sexual dimorphism in humans. In humans it's much greater than most other species and female physiology has evolved to accentuate sexual characteristics - we're one of the few (if not the only) mammals to develop breasts before pregnancy, specifically for sexual reasons. Think about it; what use are breasts prior to child baring?

So it's hardly surprising that psychologically men and women retain certain evolutionary strategies buried deep in our subconscious. While retaining the services of a providing male (a.k.a. 'commitment') remains the best recognised of these instincts in women, we can't forget that some of it is directed against other women too - personally, I've long had a suspicion that part of the reason that far more women than men tend to oppose prostitution is because it represents competition.

Nonetheless, none of this is concious. None of this is planned. Both men and women are hard-wired this way thanks to the 95% of our evolutionary history that overshadows our recent dalliance with civilization. So to suggest a conspiracy, some sort of organized effort by women is to ignore these biological facts and instead replace them with a fanciful theory which has absolutely no evidence supporting it. In my experience, jumping to such theories does tend to be misogynistic, as it presumes some form of premeditated malice on the part of women.

*Some have even suggested that humans have a reproductive cycle of about 3-4 years. A "honeymoon period" which ensures interest in both sexes to keep high long enough for any offspring to be weaned.

I've read 7 years myself, but it amounts to the same thing - we're built to be serial monogamists, with relationships being designed to last long enough for the offspring to be largely independent, before the female can move to find a new mate (the diversity of different children by different fathers also brings evolutionary advantages, after all).

Another evolutionary trait that's been examined has been the cuckold syndrome; when choosing a mate, evolution will cause a female to seek two things - good genetics and good provision. Sometimes you can't get both in one man, which leads to the old scenario whereby a woman is with a good provider, yet having sex (and children) with a handsome 'bad boy', on the side.

Wibbs wrote: »

What's scary and what history has shown us that even the most reprehensible ideology can be made to have it's own quite logical rationale. Even among otherwise very intelligent people.

Depends on what you consider 'racist'.

The pseudo-science of nineteenth century race theory, and it's modern incarnation racialism, is one end of the scale, in that it takes superficial racial observations and extrapolates often ridiculous conclusions that invariably have social and political motivations.

On the other side of the scale, you can have a simple fact; such as that Asians are far less able, as a whole, to process alcohol than Europeans (a product of how both regions developed water purification differently over 10,000 years). While both factual and lacking any social or political agenda, such a statement would be considered racist by many.

Wibbs wrote: »

The Abrahamic type is but one theology and but one philosophy on sexual and gender relations.Great in theory, but not really.

This was a major issue during the early conversions to Christianity in the Roman empire. Pagan Roman sexual morality was far more liberal than Christian (effectively Abrahamic) sexual morality - this is not to say that there was little Pagan Roman sexual morality - and this resulted in situations whereby converted Roman wives would refuse sex to their husbands on religious grounds. I remember reading that this was something that let to a fair bit of antipathy twoards Christianity.

KyussBishop

All of that makes perfect sense anthropologically and in an evolutionary way, the bit where it snags for me though, are the implicit claims about limitations in human behaviour/psychology in society.

The history and the logic of it is all solid, but I don't see a non-speculative way to apply it to the present and future/near-future; claims like this behaviour being 'buried in our subconscious' I think is a step too far, given that our understanding of human psychology doesn't yet allow for solid/objective claims like that (not until we can physically map/understand the brain better).

So the claim/implication of there being an innate/unmovable/hard-wired set of psychological 'traits' here, can't be sufficiently backed in my view (it can be heavily suggested, based on past precedent, sure - but it can't be nailed down as true, without much better backing).


I think a lot of it boils down to the claim: This is how it has been done in the past, therefore it is how it will be done in the future.
By itself that is fallacious, without further backing; and describing in detail exactly why something has been so prevalent in the past, is not good enough backing to say that is how it will be in the future, because you have to describe why all of the reasons that made it logical in the past, still apply in the present/future.

This is where it breaks down: A huge amount of the reasoning for this being the case in the past, is starting to disappear now as society changes, and (as good/interesting the points are in discussion here) I just don't see what is still left.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

All of that makes perfect sense anthropologically and in an evolutionary way, the bit where it snags for me though, are the implicit claims about limitations in human behaviour/psychology in society.

The history and the logic of it is all solid, but I don't see a non-speculative way to apply it to the present and future/near-future; claims like this behaviour being 'buried in our subconscious' I think is a step too far, given that our understanding of human psychology doesn't yet allow for solid/objective claims like that (not until we can physically map/understand the brain better).

I think you're looking at it a bit simplistically. Where it comes to nature versus nurture, it's not all black and white. Sure, we can be 'hard-wired' to behave in a certain way, but we're not doomed to do so - our brains don't work the same way as a computer where we must follow binary logic gates.

Instead we're more analogue and we can and do overcome this 'hard-wired' thinking too; not always, but more often than we realize.