> for vast vast majority of evolutionary history sapians are in small bands with strict egalitarian resources distribution and communal raising of children
> monogamous partnerships a result of agriculture and for most of recorded history purely contractual and primarily about property/ trade agreements.
> agriculture has only existed for 12,000 years a fucking blip of a nothing on an evolutionary scale
> memers on the interwebs using cuck as their most powerful insult
> their penis literally evolved in a shape intended to pull jizz out of a cunt already used in the tribal orgy
history of sexuality thread
>for vast vast majority of evolutionary history sapians are in small bands with strict egalitarian resources distribution and communal raising of children
This is often stated as a fact, but i've never seen any convincing proof or logical reasoning why it would have been so.
Most if not all immediate return foragers that have been studied fall into this category.
Also bonobos and general stuff extrapolated from our penis and testy size as well as facts about female sexuality relative to other primates.
I've heard this book is shit. Any better things to read for this subject?
At one point it has been like that.
I had another link about the subject but I have lost it and it had a paywall.
What is it with the glorification of bonobos in modern science?
Almost every show on tv about them or even mentioning them treat them as like some wishy washy goal for humanity.
I was reading about pederasty and it's fascinating how it existed everywhere, and is even practiced today in places like Afghanistan. Like, why was such an act seen as so important and great until relatively recently?
But they don't also have an innate streak to dominate and horde resources? If we were really so naturally predisposed to egalitarianism then we wouldn't develop hierarchy in the first place.
Or do you believe in the noble savage meme?
If that were true we'd probably have micro peens like silverbacks. It's also contradicted by the anthropological evidence we have of peoples living in the material conditions one would presume our ancestors existed in.
If it's a choice between them and rape cannibalism warfare chimps, you pick the free love peaceful bunch because that's more friendly to the feels
obviously false dichotomy since culture/ economics creates so much visible diversity and human nature in this context is a meme.
>mfw the sources and references are just the opinions of historians
>mfw opinion in this sense is literally just opinion and not even an educated guess
I've done the searching, I feel like this part of history is just political.
Most of what you said is just arguing from ignorance.
But whatever, cite some legitimate evidence aside from "it looks like".
Check again. If by 'opinions of historians' you mean anthropological studies of recorded observation of current and past hunter gatherer cultures, you're correct. What's important is all empirical stuff-- this is the way tribes like this live. The extrapolation is just that it makes sense that this was true of other groups living in the same material conditions much farther back. Why would this not follow?
Not really, that was just Foucault wishful thinking. Remember that his entire work was a justification for his communist ideals.
The Neolithic Revolution was the original beta uprising
>under hunter-gatherer societies, a few alpha males monopolized all women and beta males had to fight for scraps or die alone
>together, they invent this thing called "religion", which predates agriculture (see Gobekli Tepe)
>thanks to "religion", alpha males are restrained and women become available for beta males
>alpha males and women see this as the worst thing that ever happened, most revolutionary movements ever since have been based upon an alliance between them
>still, thanks to the hard and honest-work of beta males with families, civilization is born
This text is better than that French bald faggot entire ouevre.
>To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.
Unfortunately, the arrival of post-industrial society made beta males obsolete and the sexual revolution have thrown human sexuality back to the Stone Age. Considering the imminent Muslim conquest of the West, that won't last long, though.
Another dissident sexual studies work is F. Roger Devlin's "Sexual Utopia in Power".
It won't get taught in classes, because it doesn't fit the interests of the revolutionary communist intelligentsia, but it's good.
like it says in the article if humans actually were polygynous before agriculture you'd expect much larger rates of sexual dimorphism than you do see. Also tiny penises. we got big penises.
>What is it with the glorification of bonobos in modern science?
For the same reason why people glorified primitive tribesmen based on the work of lying anthropologists such as Margaret Mead.
People actually want to feel good about their promiscuity and degeneracy, they want to feel like it's the "right" thing to do. Stories of tribesmen in Samoa that practiced promiscuous sex fit right into their interests, so they promoted it, even though they were based on lies.
Once these lies were revealed, they shifted to bonobos instead.
Yeah i have always myself thought that this whole "we were egalitarians before the evil society came" was sort of bullshit. Especially when we looks past questions about gender and think about individuals who got too old/crippled/just unfit from the perspective of evolution, it makes no sense that they would be dragged along.
>writing masturbatory wank-pretzels
>expecting to find anything actually useful or concretely applicable to the real world
nigga, the fuck is wrong with you. He was a homo, so I'd be skeptical what he can really know about sex.
>Her reports detailing the attitudes towards sex in South Pacific and Southeast Asian traditional cultures influenced the 1960s sexual revolution. She was a proponent of broadening sexual mores within a context of traditional Western religious life.
>Mead's research has come under criticism since her death. Five years after her death anthropologist Derek Freeman published a book refuting many of Mead's conclusions. Freeman initially received considerable backlash and harsh criticism from the anthropology community. Mead's research was seen as supporting various political positions and an attack on Mead was seen as a bigger attack on these political ideals. Other anthropologists who studied the Samoans confirmed Freeman's findings and contradicted those of Mead. While Mead was careful to shield the identity of all her subjects for confidentiality one participant in her study was found and interviewed and she said that she and her friends were having fun with Mead and telling her stories. Mead's significance as an anthropologist and her cultural influence do not seem to have not been diminished by this criticism.
Jesus Christ, leftism is a cancer and the whole intellectual justification for the sexual revolution was a lie.
It doesn't mean like communism, there would have still been hierarchy, all it means is that we evolved to reward others for helping us and seek to help others for rewards.
Everyone wasn't fucking everyone, and one dude wasn't fucking all the women.
It was probably the one dude and his bros (hunters, maybe also advisers or even entertainers) fucking all the women, and while one was clearly the leader the one who had the best dick got most pregnant because of physics.
Thank You for your post and for this link:
It really made me think.
I think, even after reading all the comments to that link, and all the links contained within that link, that I'm beginning to see the light! Just a crack, but my own White Knighthood tendencies are definitely demolishing before my very eyes! And I say that as a man who is raising two teenage daughters, homeschooling, and whose wife left him and has had no contact with any of us since my youngest daughter was a month old! I can assure you she has never paid a penny in child support in all these years either! I still love women as the Goddesses they are; but I'm not dragging my daughters through endless relationships either, and I AM teaching Them to be worthy humans -- GODDESSES, Really!
No cuck beta male will EVER have a chance with them!
The future looks bright to me!
The crack of dawn, the morning sun, is shining through!
Thanks again for your insight.
>we are egalitarians
>so we're going to create a society where chad gets us pregnant in our 20s while you are socially excluded so you can focus on earning money and you can help raise our kids (or pay single male tax) when we hit 30, ok?
Do you really believe the liberal left represents all that is ethical and right in the world? Just wondering.
>people who understand genealogical arguments are about cherry picking to prove whatever point you want
I've seen them used legitimately by historians of ideas, it tends to involve exhaustive research in finely delineated topics, like where the marketing slogan of a minor western Telephone company came from in 1950, and the deep cultural meanings.
Obviously this is another attack on Foucault for waltzing.
He IS however the easiest person to point to about power/praxis, because your undergraduates aren't going to read Tronti.
A homosexual marxist Sade cultist
Another italian communist nut
Welcome to college, boys.
This is largely true for those who evolved in Northern Europe. Colder environments and limited resources led to k-selection reproductive strategies. Not sure how true this is for more r-selected races like blacks in Africa.
I didn't imply that. It's a fact that different reproductive strategies can be observed across different human races, just as different animals in different environments and climates with different access to resources develop different reproductive strategies.
Do you really think modern day Africans aren't engaging in r-type selection considering their massive overpopulation, and the comparative under-population of northern and western Europeans?
Because they're poorer, less educated, and heavily religious?
Europeans had loads of kids prior to the contemporary era
And Europe is one of the most hospitable areas of the world. The sahel is lush for african cattle, but european cattle would turn rail thin living there.
Pretty sure Europe's fertility was much higher before contraception (and evolutionary forces don't result in dramatic change over a few centuries), greater wealth is also associated with lower fertility. I have no idea why you're attempting to explain something like fertility with a single almost entirely irrelevant correlation.
Depends on how we're defining it. There's obviously genetically distinct populations such as Sardinians, Finns, Pygmies, etc.
But something like an "Aryan" or "Turanid" race is malarkey.
>agriculture has only existed for 12,000 years a fucking blip of a nothing on an evolutionary scale
Evolution works a lot faster than you may think.
A most prominent factor in favour of monogamy being "natural" is the phenomenon of jealousy. Most people are not fine with their partners sleeping with others. They don't want to raise the children of strangers.
>A most prominent factor in favour of monogamy being "natural" is the phenomenon of jealousy. Most people are not fine with their partners sleeping with others. They don't want to raise the children of strangers.
How would that support monogamy, rather than indicating that extra pair copulation has been around long enough to result in jealousy as a security behaviour to attempt to ensure that you're not a cuck.
also sexual dimorphism nigga
Laws and customs don't just appear out of random, there's usually a good reason behind them. People have murdered each other out of jealousy. It's in a society's interest to maintain order and thus religious monogamousness only mirrors the natural human desire to be the exclusive partner.
>we're special snowflakes the argument
>According to Daly and Wilson, "The sexes differ more in human beings than in monogamous mammals, but much less than in extremely polygamous mammals." One proposed explanation is that human sexuality has developed more in common with its close relative the bonobo, who have similar sexual dimorphism and which are polygynandrous and use recreational sex to reinforce social bonds and reduce aggression.
>"The sexes differ more in human beings than in monogamous mammals, but much less than in extremely polygamous mammals."
Which would indicate that it go either way and that there's no definitive conclusion possible.
Looking at different species isn't going to tell you much about the human nature. It can be useful to get a general idea, but in order to properly derive information you should be looking at humans rather than bonobos. And the status quo, human societal development, rules and customs disagree with humans being polygamous.
Not to mention that any research in that direction should be considered sceptically, since there's usually some sort of agenda behind.
>rules and customs disagree with humans being polygamous
Some cultures don't, there's a lot of variation.
>since there's usually some sort of agenda behind.
Are you really that stupid, your saying that every biologist who's been interested in the topic has all been part of some big conspiracy. You're spending too much time on 4chan m8.
>Some cultures don't, there's a lot of variation.
I'd say that in lots of cases this is western anthropologists looking at these things with rose coloured glasses, trying to find something exotic and idealistic. I don't think humans are that different, no matter where you go.
>your saying that every biologist who's been interested in the topic has all been part of some big conspiracy
Anything in regards to human nature has always been highly political and it still is.
>egalitarian resource distribution and communal raising of children and monogamous partnership is exclusive to each other
Sexual dimorphism and comparison to species with similar levels of dimorphism is perfectly valid as an investigation, and bonobo seem to share the most similarities. Any use of science by politician isn't science.
>One proposed explanation is that human sexuality has developed more in common with its close relative the bonobo
You know, I'm very interested in the evidence for this. The growth in promiscuity and supporting "looser" sexual expression has begun a big trend towards destructive behaviors when dealing with sex that the Social Justice crowd is now trying to actively fight (while still being pro-sex, which has gotten them shooting themselves in the foot a lot) so I cannot say a direct comparison to the Bonobo society and its relations are proper and its effects actually being comparable to us.
>Sexual dimorphism and comparison to species with similar levels of dimorphism is perfectly valid as an investigation
The point is that it's not a valid conclusion. as I said earlier: similarities with a singular species that shares some characteristics does not imply that humans must operate in the same fashion, especially given the fact that humans are quite different from other species.
If you want to make a proper point about humans, take a look at humans. Looking at bonobos may point you in the right direction, but in the end, you'll have to take a look at humans and see whether your ideas hold or whether there contradicting elements and the model you came up with doesn't fit after all.
>Any use of science by politician isn't science.
Scientists still depend on funds, they depend on the public opinion. And if most people think that what you're doing is offensive, then you're going to get in trouble sooner or later. With some sorts of sciences it's easy to exist within the ivory tower, but looking at human nature is going make you politically relevant whether you want it or not.
Implying that bonobo society has direct human equivalents is unprovable. I think it's used because of some apparent similarities, and to demonstrate one of many strategies used by non monogamous mammals. Some things evidently are shared, such as recreational sex, but as you know trying to justify your own activities from nature would fall under the naturalistic fallacy.
I think the problem is just limited access. I wonder if we went lax with sexuality and allowed everyone to bang equally, would we really be that angry about our "mates" fucking around with other people? after all, you also get the same opportunity to do as much
it's one thing to get cheated on, and quite another to get cheated on after having cheated a couple times yourself towards the same person, and if it was agreed that exclusiveness wasn't even part of the contract then i assume this is made a lot less worst.
also, i think the only instance for moaning to be an evolutionary trait is shown in female gorillas, where they moan to initiate a gangbang. Who knows, maybe the human female is designed for mating in gangbangs
>I wonder if we went lax with sexuality and allowed everyone to bang equally, would we really be that angry about our "mates" fucking around with other people? after all, you also get the same opportunity to do as much
I believe that jealousy is something natural. It's not a matter of reason, but a primordial feeling present in the individual that wants to raise its own offspring rather than another's.
But even if we assume that it would be suppressed by the opportunity to sleep around as well, you should consider that not everyone has that opportunity.
By very nature women are more picky than men when it comes to choosing their partners. They're evolution's gatekeepers, and they're the ones who naturally get stuck with a child, with the possibility of not surviving birth always being present. In that regard, they cannot sleep around all too carelessly and randomly. They need to pick a partner with good traits.
Nowadays due to contraception the "reasoning" behind has become obsolete, but human nature doesn't adapt as fast.
Just like the free market doesn't result in an equal distribution of wealth, a free market of love isn't going to make sure that everyone is served equally, but you'd have a fraction of exceedingly successful men, and a lot of men who aren't getting anything.
I really doubt they have a biological imperative against getting fucked in every hole all the time like whores; a good look at the modern liberated american woman will show that it isn't the case.
also, i forgot to add, here's this
>Researchers have determined that a woman will vocalize to attract more males to copulate with her when the current male is done. This behavior of mating with more than one male at a time supports sperm competition. The more males a woman copulates with, the higher probability she’ll conceive a healthy offspring.
All i'm claiming is that monogamy doesn't seem to be the natural state. You have more female ancestors than males, due to this pretty much.
>Men and women differed in their participation in reproduction, the researchers report. More men than women get squeezed out of the mating game. As a result, twice as many women as men passed their genes to the next generation.
"It is a pattern that's built up over time. The norm through human evolution is for more women to have children than men," said Jason Wilder, a postdoctoral fellow in UA's Arizona Research Laboratories and lead author on the research articles. "There are men around who aren't able to have children, because they are being outcompeted by more successful males."
>>All i'm claiming is that monogamy doesn't seem to be the natural state.
get a bull, you will see how your gf's eyes sparkle once she feels full. Kiss her while the bull makes her cum like you have never been able to, it is a wonderful feeling to give your gf this happiness.
Women have always wanted to be fucked, but only by men from whom they expected the best pleasure in bed AND after their orgasms. of course, they eventually get bored in bed, but never with men who give them gifts and pay their bills.
because sex always never lasts is why it is better to be a provider for material goods, rather than for sex. The real relationship with women is when you give them money: they become free from the constraints of life. they are free to do what they want. It is called compassion.
The best relationship is when you give them money so that they agree that you make them cum. this is called kindness.
>society with one patriarch fucking all the females and all other males dying virgins.
What a stupid thing to say, you know that a patriarch who did that would not be able to stay in power, because the dude willing to share would Usurp him.
Also how the fuck would your 'Alpha' manage to stop other men sleeping with the women?
Childless Cuck detected.
Still, your point about females being designed for mating in gangbangs is well taken. Unfortunately, most of us no longer live in smaller communities where the entire community is involved in the raising of offspring. There are still such communities of humans where every male is thought of as father; not only because any one them could be, considering the orgiastic behavior or the community, but also because every male considers the possibility that any one of the children could be his, and acts accordingly, not only in caring for the needs of all the children, but also caring for the needs (even material needs, like sharing of resources) of all the women! In fact, every member of such communities is honored and valued as an integral part of the society; not just as a resource provider, but also as a valuable resource in and of themselves, including the aged and infirm! They all have important parts to play. Modern 'civilized' society that only values the individual for what he or she brings to the table just isn't conducive to giving a shit about everybody. That, and we don't do enough psychedelics! The psychedelic experience is conducive to everyone giving a shit about everyone else, and also a common theme in many orgiastic communities like the ones I am describing.
You are Definitely a childless cuck!
Or your gf is too old and worn out to have children. Or you suffer from penis envy. Or you don't know how to pleasure a woman, and you are desperately trying to figure it out. Or we all need to take some psychedelics and fuck your gf, everyone else's gf, and each other, in every hole just for fun, and to strengthen our social bonds!
It's food for thought anyway.
Considering that my 14 yr old daughter is 6' 1", and my 12 yr old daughter is 5' 10", I highly doubt that! Still, the way my ex fucked around I suppose it's possible, but only if you are also 6' 8" tall and hung like a bull like me! And yes, I am a real man who is actually raising my children, unlike you, evidently -- and DEFINITELY unlike my ex, who we have heard hide nor hair of in 11 years! That worthless fuck is probably your gf now, and I say more power to you! You and all the other bulls you invite into your bed deserve her! I deserve the joy of raising my own children. I also deserve the joy of having my pick of desirable females, since I am not a beta, nor am I tied down with one female; although, in all honesty, I am somewhat constrained by the rigors of raising children all by myself! Still, even that in itself makes me more desirable to women! Heh heh heh...
>> their penis literally evolved in a shape intended to pull jizz out of a cunt already used in the tribal orgy
>More men than women get squeezed out of the mating game.
I don't find this unlikely at all. Few men sleep with lots of women. And women are generally fine with sharing the best men.
Men however, are more drawn to monogamousness, since they want to ensure that they're the ones to pass on their genes.
You are living proof that it DID happen!
You are also assuming that women's 'choice' in their sexual partners was always by Choice!
>You are living proof that it DID happen!
>You are also assuming that women's 'choice' in their sexual partners was always by Choice!
It certainly wasn't but if we do assume that most men are jealous by nature, then gang-rape is not the norm. Most men don't want to share.
Ahh, I think we are finally touching on OP's point here!
Most men are jealous nowadays because we are products of the agricultural revolution, patriarchy and ideas about 'property', property 'rights' and women being 'property'. But before all that happened, let's go back 15,000 years, just to be safe, women were revered as Goddesses, the givers of life, receptacles for more than just our jizz, human receptacles for the Deity HERSelf! We, as humans (and I'm including your ancestors here), most Certainly participated in tribal orgies! There is plenty of evidence to support that; and tribal orgies are still practiced in some parts of the world. Curiously, the psychedelic experience Does also seem to be linked to such behaviors, as does everyone in the community caring for the needs of everyone else in the community -- All their needs, including, but not limited to, their sexual needs!
I'm just saying that we, as a species, could be worse off in some ways, because of the agricultural revolution. There's always a trade-off when it comes to revolutions of any kind; and I don't think evolution has always advanced every species in every way. We could be due for another revolution right now -- and I'm just putting in my vote for more psychedelics and more mass orgies, that's all!
>women were revered as Goddesses
I'm not too certain about that.
>humans (and I'm including your ancestors here), most Certainly participated in tribal orgies!
Only the popular males. And whether they were orgies is also something questionable - simply due to the fact that men are generally jealous individuals. I'm more inclined to think that women simply had multiple partners, but each one of them carefully chosen rather than just random guys.
>Most men are jealous
>Patriarchy ideas about property and women being property
Oh yes, I would assume youve done the research and studies to come to that conclusion here, havent you?
Im so sick of hearing this nonsense. Literally no one under the age of 50 these days thinks that in at all. I am currently at college, and I cant think of a single person I know who does.
Well, you're obviously not going to take my word for it, so I highly doubt you will take the word of some hippie Goddess worshipping woman from California; but I took the time to Google the subject just for you, so maybe you will do me the honor of reading the link I'm now providing. It was the first one I came across, and I'm sure there are plenty of better ones, but I actually just read her entire essay and found it thought provoking, well researched and well documented. It also contains a lot of supporting information drawn from many sources, it seems historically accurate, and is a good read, especially after she gets her introductions of herself out of the way..
It can never hurt to further one's education! Especially about History (or should I say Herstory!)
This is even a more fascinating read on the topic:
You can never go wrong with Terrence McKenna!
If you think it's b8 to participate in a conversation regarding the history of human sexuality on a thread where that is actually the topic, and to offer opportunities for others to educate themselves in ways they may not have thought of before, perhaps you are too cynical and close-minded for 4chan m8!
Yeah fuck off hippie stoned ape theory is dumb af and created by someone who fucking destroyed their own brain as backwards justification
this is right. Reason we evolved giant weird shaped dicks has to be because of some sort of competitive environment of promiscuity. None of this has anything to do with what's right or wrong now (see naturalistic fallacy) but probably kinda explains why monogamy is so hard irl
What? By beating the crap out of them obviously, that's how it works in every hierarchised species.
Although in many great ape societies the alpha is primarily determined by the female hivemind, based mostly on his ability to provide food.
Yeah the distance you have to go far enough back where humans get closer to great apes rather than our more similar relatives is greater than what actually matters for how we are now.
You don't really see patriarch/harem culture in humans until you reach agriculture, where it then starts to dominate as a strategy. Also lol -- you don't really think there are men so macho they could successfully kick the ass of a whole tribe full of competitors right?
>you want us to devolve 238,000 years of human evolution that took us to develop healthy, economically stable monogamous relationships so you don't get called a cuck on the internet
best short notice internet avaliable source i could find. patrilocalality is pre-req for polgyny.
see also sources on wiki article on hunter gatherers earlier in thread.
I'm a fucking atheist I sware to you mates, but shit like
> their penis literally evolved in a shape intended to pull jizz out of a cunt already used in the tribal orgy
makes me really doubt the validity of our current model of evolution. I mean that'plausible, but plenty of other animals have spear-shaped dicks, and to claim that that is the case with absolute certainty
ABSOLUTELY UNVERIFIABLE SENPAI
>You will never have a wife with whom you can confide in for counsel, and a harem of beautifull teenage girls all to yourself
Don't get down. If this ugly shit can do it, so can you.
I think a more prominent factor is not wanting to have STDs.
I think infidelity and promiscuity are kinda natural, but it makes sense to become monogamous if you don't wanna suffer every time you pee, and have big purulent bumps on your sexual organ.
>> for vast vast majority of evolutionary history sapians are in small bands with strict egalitarian resources distribution and communal raising of children
That's wrong you fucking nigger.
Daily reminder that Marx was not an anthropologist, but an unemployed Jew who lived in his mom's basement.
>I'm not sure about the egalitarian aspect, but communal raising of children seems accurate.
No, children were raised by their mothers. Or if you consider that children were raised communally, then so are children today, since they all go to school communally.
>tfw the women in this picture have bigger arms than you