Is there something to learn here - about how we evolved?

elivsvonchiaing

Was doing some mad searches and found this...
http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org/
E.g. Scientific observation has revealed that social interactions among bonobos are far less hostile than among common chimps. This is not to say that bonobos never fight; they just do so a lot less.

"common chimps resolve sexual issues with power. Bonobos resolve power issues with sex." The latter seems to be safer and more fun for everyone. "

This raised a few questions:
1. Have we stiffled our inner nature through "civilisation"?
2. Has the homo-sapiens concept of "ownership" been responsible for this?
3. Would any guy before feminisim had these thoughts?
4. Why did it take cinema e.g. Mae West to put feministic thoughts into the forefront? (a bit of a simplification - I know she had her predecessors)
5. Why does human sexuality lack what our intellectual inferiors seem to enjoy?

The bonabas seriously made me think...

I'd just be interested in other questions/answers it raises with other boards posters. This will only remain in humanities as long as you folks stick to topic - "do we have anything to learn here - in the context of the vast societal changed in the latter half of 19th century!"

Zombrex

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

I'd just be interested in other questions/answers it raises with other boards posters. This will only remain in humanities as long as you folks stick to topic - "do we have anything to learn here - in the context of the vast societal changed in the latter half of 19th century!"

I am not quite sure if you can "learn" to use sexual intercourse as a means to solving conflict, or if the way the chimps hug after fights can be learnt. It seems to be more in there nature

It would be interesting to see if it is actually instinct that makes them do this or if it is a social code that has developed over generations. That would be fascinating

DadaKopf

I couldn't see George Bush having sexual intercourse with Kofi Annan the next time a showdown between the US and UN happens. Then again....

Talliesin

DadaKopf wrote:

I couldn't see George Bush having sexual intercourse with Kofi Annan the next time a showdown between the US and UN happens. Then again....

The US have been ****ing the UN for decades.

Zombrex

Talliesin wrote:

The US have been ****ing the UN for decades.

Funnest post of the month

elivsvonchiaing

Wicknight wrote:

The US have been ****ing the UN for decades.

ROFL!

Wicknight wrote:

I am not quite sure if you can "learn" to use sexual intercourse as a means to solving conflict, or if the way the chimps hug after fights can be learnt. It seems to be more in there nature

It would be interesting to see if it is actually instinct that makes them do this or if it is a social code that has developed over generations. That would be fascinating

I actually know a swinging couple, I casually mentioned the advance I had from her to a friend of mine ... I ran a mile, turns out so did he, then informed me they were swingers and do groups. They seem fairly normal on the surface and seem to have a strong relationship. They don't have kids, so I see no harm here - once caution is exercised. Not sure how I'd judge them if they did, though.

So I am inclined to think that a lot of this is social code as apposed to instinct - even if I knew the hubbie was a swinger at the time - still think I would have bottled out - again because of social code - you just don't do it.
There are times I regret this "programming".

Can't remember where I read/saw it but heard that humans have only been monogomous for 50,000 or so.

Google found this: http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/005799.html
"Now here's where things may get a little sticky for the "one-man-one-woman-is-traditional-and-natural" camp. The explanation the Arizona scientists favor for their results is polygyny--two or more women having children with a single man. To understand why, imagine an island with 1,000 women and 1,000 men, all married in monogamous pairs, just as their parents did, and their grandparents, and so on back to the days of the first settlers on the island. Let's say that if you trace back the Y chromosomes in the men, you'd find a common ancestor 2,000 years ago. Now imagine that the 1,000 women are all bearing children again, but this time only 100 men are the fathers. You'd expect that the ancestor of this smaller group of men lived much more recently than the common ancestor of all 1,000 men."

The last century was revolutionary in terms of sex/the sexes - what halted our evolution were STDs, and renewal/inertia in religion and also generation-rift causing shock waves. Right now monogamy makes perfect sense.

In a future where STDs are a thing of the past - (think only intelligent nano-machines or something could make this possible) - we may well undergo another sexual revolution much less violent than the last one - spread over 3-4 generations and discover our true polygamous selves again. Just think this might reduce warfare/violence in general.

What made man adopt monogomy? I've no idea myself - didn't find any consistent stuff on google - didn't spend hours though. I suspect either STDs, or advance in human linguistics - the ability to assert power with language alone.

Would be fascinated by any good answers to this one though.

I didn't find anything to suggest man has been monogomous for 3 million years, but if there's scientific evidence out there it would be interesting to weigh it against the polygymist stuff.

Zombrex

I think polygamous ignores the fact that sex has become very entwined with emotion.

TBH while it seems to have become very fashionable to go on about polygamy as the natural state of our nature, I personally believe that is more the high ideal, out of reach, state that we wish was our nature. People who champion polygamy seem to be striving for a state of sexual and emotional happiness (for want of a better word), filling an emotional void that is missing in their relationships and life, but they never seem to reach it and I question if that is an obtainable goal.

It seems more of an emotional immaturaty that makes them unable to cope with monogamy, than a desire to find true happiness with polygamy.

But just my personal opinion.

elivsvonchiaing

Wicknight wrote:

I think polygamous ignores the fact that sex has become very entwined with emotion.

TBH while it seems to have become very fashionable to go on about polygamy as the natural state of our nature, I personally believe that is more the high ideal, out of reach, state that we wish was our nature. People who champion polygamy seem to be striving for a state of sexual and emotional happiness (for want of a better word), filling an emotional void that is missing in their relationships and life, but they never seem to reach it and I question if that is an obtainable goal.

It seems more of an emotional immaturaty that makes them unable to cope with monogamy, than a desire to find true happiness with polygamy.

But just my personal opinion.

I still think polygamy is inherent in our genetic programming - but monogomy is programmed social code. it probably started to make sense when we started to live in larger tribes eventually becoming the first cities - in a small tribe the dominant male would have been tolerated. But in a larger collective - clubbed to death in his sleep.

I do think people brush aside sex as a healthy component of happiness. I think this can only be achieved through true self knowledge - we all need sex instinctively - it is when the instinctual beast isn't tamed that is what leads to deep-rooted unhappiness. I think there are a lot of people out there who believe they don't need sex - and are unaware this is their cause of unhappiness. Associate sex with complex relationships -> grief.

Monogomy started with ownership - my wife, my kids, my husband, my land etc. The attachments are where the grief lies. I don't want to sound too buddhist on this I'm not in to tantric etc, but I can see the sense in it. So think the idea of ownership = attachment is very strong in this equation, think this is part of the emotional equation: at a very crude level think primitive woman may have thought along the lines of: "you are the 10th father of my child" - "you could be eaten by a bear tomorrow" - "so I'm just going to have sex with you 'coz I need it right now" - kid still has 9 fathers left (in her mind anyhow). Think maybe in a village where one stud - was so dominant that no other male got a look in - and the concept of single paternity was born is where it all went wrong tbh.

What you are saying makes perfect sense, and I agree with it - but only in the context of our world today - don't think we are living according to our true nature tbh. It is society/social programming that makes "swingers" fill the void they have in their lives - I don't deny there is probably a "void" in most cases - but this is because they are on the periphery of the tribe perhaps.

elivsvonchiaing

http://www.toptrip.cc/destination/spot/yn_lijiang_lugulake.htm
"The Mosuo people have their own ways and customs, still retain some remnants of the matriarchal society. Men and women are not bound by marriage, each living at one's mother's home. Men work at home during the day and spend their night with the women they love in theiv homes. Children are under the care of and supported by their maternal families. Fathers do not live in the same family with their children and women so that they are not bound up with their women financially in their production and life. This unique wedlock values affection and gives more freedom to men and women in their relationships. They may choose to unite or separate at will. It has been considered as the living fossil as a basis for a study of social patterns and matriarchal marriage customs in today' s world."

When I found this i was convinced we have not been living according to our true nature - we got the rules of society wrong long before christianity arrived...

I appreciate there is no easy way to change societal values overnight - but shouldn't we at least seriously question them?

azezil

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

I do think people brush aside sex as a healthy component of happiness. I think this can only be achieved through true self knowledge - we all need sex instinctively - it is when the instinctual beast isn't tamed that is what leads to deep-rooted unhappiness. I think there are a lot of people out there who believe they don't need sex - and are unaware this is their cause of unhappiness. Associate sex with complex relationships -> grief.

Oh I beg to differ!
I admit I'm a rather promiscuous person, not by choice... but we won't get into that.
I find it a very lonely existance, I long for companionship, the happiest times in my life have been when I had someone to share thoughts and experiences with. I'd gladly go without sex if I could have someone I care about to wake up to.

I believe the practice of comparing human nature to our less evolved cousins is inherently flawed, evolution has given us the ability to make rational decisions with our minds, where as primates act on instint... Whist the practise may show us where we came from, I believe to better understand ourselves, it would be far more beneficial to exam ourselves, peoples from a diverse background, beliefs and experiences.

Finally (got to the point eventually), it is my belief that we spend too much time looking back to where we came from and not enough time looking at where we are now.

elivsvonchiaing

azezil wrote:

Oh I beg to differ!
I admit I'm a rather promiscuous person, not by choice... but we won't get into that.
I find it a very lonely existance, I long for companionship, the happiest times in my life have been when I had someone to share thoughts and experiences with. I'd gladly go without sex if I could have someone I care about to wake up to.

Agree. After a one night stand I'm left feeling empty, especially if I really like the person, there's a sincere exchange of phone numbers, and two weeks later I realise I was used by a player. Really drunken one nighters make me feel worse when I realise she's a psychopath in the morning - and I feel guilty about giving her the brush-off if she does contact me.

However, when you have failed to pull in ages, this feeling is worse imho. You start thinking crazy thoughts like "I'm now giving off vibes of desperation, that anyone walking down the street will spot!"

azezil wrote:

I believe the practice of comparing human nature to our less evolved cousins is inherently flawed, evolution has given us the ability to make rational decisions with our minds, where as primates act on instint... Whist the practise may show us where we came from, I believe to better understand ourselves, it would be far more beneficial to exam ourselves, peoples from a diverse background, beliefs and experiences.

I wasn't comparing us with them - more interested in how close we are to them psycho-sexually. I believe instictively we are quite close to them only we have supressed this nature through societal programming.

Yes we have a lot to learn also from other societies. Check out my previous post on the Masuo people.

azezil wrote:

Finally (got to the point eventually), it is my belief that we spend too much time looking back to where we came from and not enough time looking at where we are now.

We do need to look at where we are know, but I think many answers to get us to the future are to be found in the past - e.g. global warming -there's a lot of info in the polar ice, trees etc. Studying our ancestors is always a key to understanding ourselves: the entire point of history as a subject, I suspect.