Sex at Dawn, an Anthropological Review of Sex

[Solstyse]

Posted by NancyV (here)

Posted by Solstyse (here)
Believing that monogamy is right and the correct way to behave is societal and religious brainwashing, in my opinion.

Now you said it was your opinion, so let me see if I can sway you.

Gibbon monkeys mate for life, and as far as I know they don't have a religion.
Swans,Wolves,Albatrosses, Beavers,Pigeons,Lobsters just to name a few are monogamous when in a relationship and some even for life.
The lack of monogamy or "respect" for the other person in said relationship, is one of the biggest downfalls of marriage. And when marriages started breaking down so did society.
Just because monogamy might not be natural ( still up for discussion ) doesn't make it bad.

I'm always open to having my views changed! In fact I've changed my opinion so many times about sex, fidelity, "free love", celibacy, etc. that it may change again, although I doubt it since I'm almost 65. I have been quite happy with many different philosophies and practices, including celibacy on a spiritual path for 7 years, study of tantric sex, so-called wife-swapping in the 70's, free love and orgies in the hippie era, to being monogamous for many years at a time.

Basically sex is an issue that is totally subjective. Whether or not you enjoy it with one or 200 different partners depends on so many things. We deal with all kinds of programming, societal and religious dictates, parental and extended family behaviors, peer pressure, etc. When one begins to realize how brainwashed we are it's still a long task to overcome the programming, if you even want to.

There is nothing bad about monogamy but if it is a non choice because of brainwashing we received in our formative years, then it's not really much of a free or informed choice. However I still don't think monogamy is entirely natural for humans as a whole because that would mean the human species would have more of a chance of becoming extinct. Sex with multiple partners truly is a natural instinct and a driving force for most males and their hormonal makeup guarantees they will have a strong sex drive. It's also probable that in times of over population more men (and possibly women) will be born who are homosexual or asexual. This happens in many animal populations including human, so homosexuality and asexuality may be entirely normal ways for nature to deal with imbalances.

One thing I learned in my many years and from having multiple partners is that even if you think certain men are just out to have as much sex as they can with as many different women as they can, they all truly want love. Sex is not only a way to propagate the species or a fun pastime, it's a way to express and receive love. I found that virtually 100% of my lovers responded to love, and some of them were difficult to reach....but I know how to give love even if it was for a one night stand. Love is the most powerful energy.

As I mentioned in my previous post, we do merge with multiple other consciousnesses in other dimensions. There is no such thing as fidelity to a partner because other consciousnesses are just separated parts of yourself and you do feel more whole whenever you merge with another. So not only may there be a human survival instinct driving humans to have sex, there is also a soul imperative to merge with other beings. Sex is the closest thing to merging that we can experience in body, in my experience. Of course you can have incredible experiences just expanding your awareness, merging with the earth, feeling others energies, feeling the beauty of everything.... but most people don't do that, so sex may bring them closer to transcending the physical than anything else they do.

Thank you NancyV for the well thought out, and equally well written response. You totally clarified what you ment, and I agree with a lot of your points.
This is honestly a subject i should stay out of. Sexuality, and me just don't mix very well, and it has been one of the main causes of my depression for many years. My views have addmittingly been warped by a Christian upbrining and repeated rejections/failures.
I believe my points are still valid, but your post is greatly appreciated.

[Cjay]

Often, those who preach "thou shalt not..." are the biggest hypocrites of all because they do all (or most) of the things they tell us not to do. I wonder if sex outside of marriage being declared a sin is yet another control mechanism. OR is it because the Satanists have such a lust for virgins, they want to keep them all to themselves. Just thinking out loud here...

[The Arthen]

No matter what your opinion is on monogamy - as long as you're a man, you have to shut your mouth and not say anything.

Often, it doesn't matter if you're into monogamy or multiple partners.

If you're into monogamy, people will tell you that you're "insecure" and just "wanna impose your views on poor women" and "tell them what to do" with their lives.

If you're into multiple partners, the SAME people will tell you that you're a "typical man, not worth looking at".

(hypocrisy ignored by using the "insecurity" accusation)

Because you will ALWAYS be accused of being "insecure", or "telling women what to do", or "imposing your will" on others, and all that stuff.

Besides the very keen and great observations made on this topic here - but other than that - funnily enough, "insecurity" is often the most common imposition itself, no matter WHICH side of the coin you're more inclined with!

[write4change]

That Arthen is the point of the whole book in my humble opinion. It is the supposed need of women for security for themselves and their children that has created the monogamy paradigm. If life for women and children were secure there would be no need for monogamy. Thus, it is a control issue. What the book and the clip clearly states is that in bonobo society there is no recorded war, infanticide, rape, and reduction of self esteem. There is less stress to all involved and the males all get laid more. Sex is used for peace and sharing. In the champanzee society, it is exactly the opposite. Dispersal of food begins the fight and everything is trickle down from there.

In the middle ages, once the marriage contract was completed and the heir provided, people were basically but discreetly free to have sex with a more suitable partner despite the catholic church. Inquisitions were used by your enemies to stop you from rising or to get your stuff. Only people with great talent like Leonardo Di Vinci escaped them. He was first brought before the Inquistion and beaten at 17 for anonymous charges. In his life, he was called to the Inquisition twice more. Do we need to wonder why he developed mirror writing and symbols?

The exact same thing remains true today. They dirty laundry is known, it just is not brought out until leadership and impact is developed. Herbert Hoover blackmailed every single American president he worked for. He made it quite clear he had a file on everyone. Eliot Spitzer and his call girl crime was and is no different.

Supposedly if you give a woman security, she gives you freedom. Among the rich in the beginning of the last century, husbands had mistresses, kings had mistresses, etc. The understanding is-- it was discreet and if you stepped out of that pattern you suffered socially. Today's scandals are because of the fundies who give their numerical power to the rich who have never had to abide by a little stuff on the side being a scandal. So now you have serial monogamy with much bitterness because on a whole if you are the woman when you loose the prize husband to the trophy wife you loose your social standing and so do your kids on a whole. Now we have more ego wars over all kinds of security. All of these are relatively new terms showing up in the last 30 years. In the book, it talks about how women feel they must kick their husband out rather they want to or not. Many men flaunt to get out of what they no longer want and let the wife do the "right" thing. The reality is there are very few places that recognize adultry with punishment as grounds for divorce. Thus, women still have no security, only the illusion, which makes them mean and vindictive when they are insecure. And men even when married to trophy wives like Halley Berry and Sandra Bullock have to prove their masculine disirability because their ego is so wounded by having sugar mommies.

I really do think if we were tribes focused on the raising of children as being everyone's children, that is when we get peace and security. This book and this thread is about considering an entirely different way of thinking about how we would evolve to a new earth. Nuclear families are less than 100 years old and they are mostly failures.

[The Arthen]

Posted by write4change (here)
If life for women and children were secure there would be no need for monogamy. Thus, it is a control issue. What the book and the clip clearly states is that in bonobo society there is no recorded war, infanticide, rape, and reduction of self esteem. There is less stress to all involved and the males all get laid more. Sex is used for peace and sharing. In the champanzee society, it is exactly the opposite. Dispersal of food begins the fight and everything is trickle down from there.

In the middle ages, once the marriage contract was completed and the heir provided, people were basically but discreetly free to have sex with a more suitable partner despite the catholic church. Inquisitions were used by your enemies to stop you from rising or to get your stuff. Only people with great talent like Leonardo Di Vinci escaped them. He was first brought before the Inquistion and beaten at 17 for anonymous charges. In his life, he was called to the Inquisition twice more. Do we need to wonder why he developed mirror writing and symbols?

The exact same thing remains true today. They dirty laundry is known, it just is not brought out until leadership and impact is developed. Herbert Hoover blackmailed every single American president he worked for. He made it quite clear he had a file on everyone. Eliot Spitzer and his call girl crime was and is no different.

Supposedly if you give a woman security, she gives you freedom. Among the rich in the beginning of the last century, husbands had mistresses, kings had mistresses, etc. The understanding is-- it was discreet and if you stepped out of that pattern you suffered socially. Today's scandals are because of the fundies who give their numerical power to the rich who have never had to abide by a little stuff on the side being a scandal. So now you have serial monogamy with much bitterness because on a whole if you are the woman when you loose the prize husband to the trophy wife you loose your social standing and so do your kids on a whole. Now we have more ego wars over all kinds of security. All of these are relatively new terms showing up in the last 30 years. In the book, it talks about how women feel they must kick their husband out rather they want to or not. Many men flaunt to get out of what they no longer want and let the wife do the "right" thing. The reality is there are very few places that recognize adultry with punishment as grounds for divorce. Thus, women still have no security, only the illusion, which makes them mean and vindictive when they are insecure. And men even when married to trophy wives like Halley Berry and Sandra Bullock have to prove their masculine disirability because their ego is so wounded by having sugar mommies.

I really do think if we were tribes focused on the raising of children as being everyone's children, that is when we get peace and security. This book and this thread is about considering an entirely different way of thinking about how we would evolve to a new earth. Nuclear families are less than 100 years old and they are mostly failures.

Sure, not that I do not see a need to evolve into a new earth.

But do not forget that we each are also manifesting our current timeline. Dire mistakes are often made when we make too much reference to the past, that it becomes a justification for ignoring even the simplest of things that work in the now as well.

The reason why I'm taking my time to hold my own reservations because I've seen one too many cockeyed liberals jumping into the classic behavior of justifying why they want to get rid of old-fashioned thinking because of so much suffering - but they always end up causing most of contemporary suffering themselves, ironically based on that very justification of "reducing suffering because of older belief systems".

In the end, a "contemporary" new belief system is formed, which although might give some the satisfaction of being different from other belief systems - still does not serve any improvements whatsoever.

I also find many desperate men trying to be part of the conversation with the women who talk about changing belief systems (often only for themselves), but they ignore the women who are still perfectly happy with older belief systems.

This makes me a complete fly on the wall when it comes to such discussions.

I think I'll keep my eyes on contemporary discussions still, especially when those discussions entail "getting rid of belief systems to form a new one".

We're still children in our evolution. We all get very excited when we form new belief systems, often ignoring newer problems altogether as a more "radical" way of showing how "new" the ideas we've come up with. That alone is enough to make me take my time with such issues, and not get pressured into a "new way" of thinking "just because" we must.

[write4change]

For me it would be a new earth and a new way of thinking. For the peoples of Amazonia, Oceania, and other rainforest tribes, it is preserving their way of life for thousands of years with stable populations.

[The Arthen]

That's perfectly fine. Just my own two cents, that's all.

You're right, new ways of thinking should either way still be allowed to bear their fruits. Only then, time will tell.

Not condeming any possibility of new ways of thought like a religious nut, but neither am I quick to blame "control issues" for restricting new ways of thought.

Reason is - I saw 2 different "controlling" people preach the same thing.

One was out of genuine love.

The other was abusive and completely way off.

The world seems to always choose to see the latter. (not that the world is wrong, but could it possibly be insecurity on the world's part itself as well? definitely.)

Eventually the ones who only see the "controlling" effect will wage all kinds of misery in the name of escaping the "controlling issue". That was when it hit me - wait a minute. If we can't even resolve our current belief systems AT LEAST by repairing minute things that can make a huge difference - then why all the "rebellion against it"?

Not that I'm saying there's no such thing as controlling douchebags who just wanna control everything. Yes, there are plenty. I KNOW there are plenty.

BUT, BUT - nowadays we're all very quick to jump to that conclusion as well, while ignoring a ****load of other elements in the process.

Sometimes an outright rebellion serves nothing more than a thoughtless "Yes, anything's better than this, mate!" sorta thing. Sounds familiar?

Not really a good thing in my eyes either...

[9eagle9]

You're right. They will tell you that. Women hear it too. If they have multiple partners they're 'S**ts'. If they are more reserved or perhaps even just less explicit in their sexuality they are 'frigid'.

It's not really the issue of monogamy or having multiple partners, its the conditions that force us into those paradigsm or allow us into them. Are we making those choices out of free will or because of conditioning or programming imposed on us?

I don't think in this thread you have to shut your mouth. I am interested in the man's opinion regardless if I agree with it or not, after all it has nothing to do with me or will affect me personally. The people who will get overactive to either notion, reservation of sexuality or sexually explicit, are the ones whose own program of conditioning gets threatened. Females in particular that base their self value in a man's approval. And men who base their self value in a woman's approval.

People, male and female, spend a great deal of time propping up their self idenity with their gender roles.

Remember the bad boy syndrome that women speak of. It was explained that women were attracted to men who were emotionally unavailable. I am beginning to rethink that theory. I wonder sometimes if a particular sort of woman who doesn't want to have co-dependency imposed on them, are attracted to men who won't impose emotional neediness upon them.

Posted by The Arthen (here)
No matter what your opinion is on monogamy - as long as you're a man, you have to shut your mouth and not say anything.

Often, it doesn't matter if you're into monogamy or multiple partners.

If you're into monogamy, people will tell you that you're "insecure" and just "wanna impose your views on poor women" and "tell them what to do" with their lives.

If you're into multiple partners, the SAME people will tell you that you're a "typical man, not worth looking at".

(hypocrisy ignored by using the "insecurity" accusation)

Because you will ALWAYS be accused of being "insecure", or "telling women what to do", or "imposing your will" on others, and all that stuff.

Besides the very keen and great observations made on this topic here - but other than that - funnily enough, "insecurity" is often the most common imposition itself, no matter WHICH side of the coin you're more inclined with!

[write4change]

what I liked about this book a lot was the studies it presented. Not just their interpretations of them but that I could ponder things about them on my own. Sexuality is so repressed in our society particularly in the time I was growing up that we are often silent within our selves about it. i have often thought I was a mutant because I thought things and sometimes experienced things with my thinking that I had no inking other women shared. One of the great things of this book was finding out things I had been struggling against were basic feminine reactions.

One of the studies was to determine the difference between what people said turned them on and what actually turned them on. They did this by showing various pictures and film clips while people had wires attached to their genitalia. First, they did it with just the pictures and no wiring to see what people said turned them on or off. Then they showed them the pictures wired up. Then they showed them the pictures wired up after being givin hormonal stimulants ie testosterone.

What they found was that heterosexual men became more heterosexual and more horny, homosexual men were not changed much and neither were lesbians, but the more heterosexual the woman the more she either lied or was totally not in touch with her body responses. These women all said the pictures had almost no effect on them but their bodies said otherwise. But the most interesting thing was that heterosexual women were turned on in some degree to everything including watching animals copulate which had almost no effect on heterosexual men. Women were on a whole into watching everything and did not find anything really boring as long as it changed.

That came as a great wow to me. At my age, i know I am still interested in everything. I just thought I was perculiar that way and kept it to myself. To find out that almost all women are that way and we deny it all the time was a great amusement to me. It also tells me part of all this repression. Men may know instinctively that that is true and they are not amused by it. The recent Kinsley report after 50 years also found that women desire by far more novelty then men and that it is men who are far happier with repeated ritual and that is also a control factor for them.

[nearing]

write4change said:

The recent Kinsley report after 50 years also found that women desire by far more novelty then men and that it is men who are far happier with repeated ritual and that is also a control factor for them.

That is really interesting. Funny how we are meant to think the opposite.

[write4change]

The big increase in divorce rates are the over 60. And over 65% are initiated by women. My own mother did well in her second marriage until she retired. He had already been retired about 5 years before her. He practically wanted to hold her hand while she sat on the pot. She divorced him when she knew I was going to buy a house for renters -- she got to live in it. It was only a few miles from him and they continued to date together, go visiting, grocery shopping etc. Until she divorced him, she could not get him to go out of the house for a movie etc. They were great friends and companions until he died.

I used to kid my husband that as soon as he retired, I was going back to work full time. I loved him but he was a tax attorney CPA and almost OCD about a lot of things. He would eye my kitchen and tell me how when he retired he would organize it once and for all. This from a man who could not boil water. I told him when that day arrived the kitchen and cookbooks were his. LOL

[Arrowwind]

Nuclear families I do think are a control device created by religions.

People who are secure **** who they fell like when they feel like it. It is social constraints that force both men and women into behavior that is not in alignment with who they are inside. If you fear the church, the government, social standing, your mother in law, you will be forced to do things that you would not otherwise do.

We essentiallly do not know who we are for every second of our lives is controlled by beliefs imposed and accepted by us.

I was an active part of the sexual revolution

when it came to having children I wanted a man who could get up, put up and shut up. I have a gem.
He is his individual self and so am I. We leave each other to be who we want to be hence the relationship lasts.
We agreed when we got married that monogamy was a suitable choice. Of course it doesnt' have to be that way for everyone.

Actually plural marriage is very attractive on many levels. Women often can emotionally sustain each other much better than a man can support a woman.
Sisters has always been quite fulfilling for me. .. and I have had signficant closeness emotionally and intellectually with woman, yet have no sexual attraction to speak of. Yet I do have an attraction. I am attracted to beauty ... women are very beautiful.. but I dont get off on it. Men are beautiful too in other ways... a strong male with an open heart is very beautiful (and sexy)

So is anyone talking hear about open heart?

One thing that probably should be discussed is hormones. People do lots of strange stuff when their hormones are screwed up and that you will find in oh so many people these days, both men and women. Neurosis abounds when hormones are not up to par, whether thryoid, sex hormones, or cortisol... and it a part of our medical paradigm that is in perpetual denial. It is an age old problem that I think is getting worse due to the chemicals and stress in our society.

You know most people are so ****ed up I stopped trying to figure it out long ago. Most people are pretty hopeless.

[CD7]

Yes ive wondered this...monogomy being unnatural?...

i was in another country (in school with other students) and they were very suprised that we were not all having sex with each other in our camp..it was very natural for them to think in "free sexual" terms.
In an industrial society they NEED men/women workers to stay put to work for the "machine". So "families" and culture will condition everyone to live this way--one family unit-mortgage to keep u in debt/place for all of ur working age.
In AFRICA do u think the government gives a FlyIN Fk where "their" people are or what their doing?, no---they certainly arent grooming them for industry!? So they wander the vast wilderness living, i suppose, closer to the "animal" nature of human.
As a female, i can certainly agree UNEQUIVOCALLY...from what ive witnessed, and sorry fellas!, men do not care to be ONLY with one woman. Its as if men are living against the grain.

[songsfortheotherkind]

Posted by Cilka (here)
Where are the women discussing this issue? That's typical. If men feel that it is unnatural to be monogamous then they should say that upfront before marriage. Or even better, men can start marrying each other and they can cheat on each other too, besides they would agree that having multiple partners while being in a relationship is perfectly fine. A match made in heaven.

Does it actually matter what gender the individual is having the discussion? I prefer to do such things gender-less, so that the exploration is about the subject and whatever personal triggers might arise from such exploration is a side issue. I have Beings as partners, not genders as partners, so perhaps my personal perspective is different.

[write4change]

Beings as partners. Instersting concept and expression. I will think on it.

[aranuk]

Monogomy suited the Landlord. It all goes back to feudal times I guess. If the monogomous family were adhered to they would be easier controlled. In the biblical days the master of the household would share a bed with the maidservant. The offspring were looked after inside the extended family. When the wife became barren the master would concentrate on the maidservant for more offspring. This is our legacy in "modern" times and has long gone past its sell by date methinks. Personally I am still married to my beautiful wife after 45 years. The bitch she is.

Stan

[Arrowwind]

You can have a being as a partner and that is fine.... but for many of us we want a male or a female when it comes to sex. All males and all females are beings. but they carry different types of baggage and no matter what you have to live with other peoples baggage if your going to live with them at all

[songsfortheotherkind]

Posted by NancyV (here)
I have to agree that monogamy is not completely natural for the human animal. Women seem to want monogamy more for the sake of security. Since they bear children and need to be taken care of and protected by their mate more so during pregnancy and when the child is young, it's natural to be more possessive during those years. Men have more of a natural instinct to spread their seed, which is a survival instinct meant to propagate the species.

Anthropology has demonstrated that this isn't really how most native cultures organise themselves- what tends to happen in many is that a) the women form their own support group, are the basis for the stability of the tribe, share the childrearing and daily routines together, with men as a side issue or b) the entire group is egalitarian and shares the care of children and one another across the board. There are, of course, other expressions of culture, such as women seen as cattle and/or possessions, and yet I feel personally that there are enough examples of cultures organising themselves in such a way as the first two examples to merit consideration as expressions of organisation that don't require monogamy or 'needing' the men for successful child raising and survival. I'm offering this as an observation.

Believing that monogamy is right and the correct way to behave is societal and religious brainwashing, in my opinion. I have observed that I went through many stages in my life, from having occasional lovers when young (and married), being monogamous when my children were young, having many lovers when single, to not having any interest in other men once I met and married my 4th husband whom I consider to be my soul mate.

He and I had similar experiences and behaviors. We both had many lovers and 3 previous marriages until we met each other 16 years ago. We occasionally jokingly argue about who had the most lovers. I say it's ME and he says it's HIM! Since we met no one else has interested us. It also may have to do with getting older and evolving to where it's natural to be less interested in sexual variety. But I also think that if you are extremely in love with someone you are not even slightly interested in anyone else, at least that's how it is for me.

To say that fidelity equates to a more evolved state doesn't seem correct to me.

I don't resonate with that either, for many different reasons, and primarily the main one is that I cannot equate a world where tolerance, acceptance of the Sui Generis of every Being, meaningful embracing and demonstration of the concept of equality as opposed to rhetoric, the end of poverty and economic model scarcity as well as many other things I see as expressions of evolution, being possible in a world where one Being feels they have the right to judge another in any way as being 'inferior'. Rationalising, no matter what the means used- religious, 'spiritual', intellectualism, psuedo-psychiatric etc- to me simply does not achieve the goals of global peace and unity that seem to be the desire of many. There is nothing useful, to my eyes, in holding up some kind of yardstick and having an 'above' and 'below', with all the judgments, hierarchies, domination and control mechanisms that lurk beneath the surface of such perspective.

When you leave your body and merge with other beings, which is a thousand times more intense and exciting than physical sex, you are actually evolving more by becoming more of who you are. You can merge with unlimited numbers of other beings. I think human sexuality gives us a tiny glimpse of that state and the desire to couple with others may just be that natural urge to merge again... with separated parts of who we are ...to become more whole.

I don't experience the merging, which I can do (although I don't consider it 'merging' in the way that most appear to use that word), with becoming 'more whole'. It's just something else: exquisite, absolutely, *and* it's another experience, not 'better' than anything else, it's Other. My joy in having physical sex is not inspired by a desire to 'merge', which I actually find- as a state of Being- dissonant; the experience of cohesion/ Beingness with others can be astounding *and* I don't actually seek it as a way of 'becoming' something which I already am. Connection is a way to experience aspects of the Wholeness that is already present.

[songsfortheotherkind]

Posted by Arrowwind (here)
You can have a being as a partner and that is fine.... but for many of us we want a male or a female when it comes to sex. All males and all females are beings. but they carry different types of baggage and no matter what you have to live with other peoples baggage if your going to live with them at all

the post I replied to was very heavily slanted towards an extreme division in Beingness between 'male' and 'female', painting the division with broad brushstrokes of suggestive judgement-

if men feel that it is unnatural to be monogamous then they should say that upfront before marriage

/headtilt/ but if *women* feel that way they are not under the same obligation? What does being a *man* have to do with the issue of monogamy? Is the poster suggesting that non-monogamy is exclusively a *male* thing? This makes no sense at all to me.

What of those who are neither male nor female, but are subtle blends of both? One of my previous partners was a beautiful individual who chose identity as a female, had the breasts and hormones of a female and male genitalia. What is the 'correct' assignation of gender in zhur case? And 'should' we then, having made the 'correct' assignation, apply the above judgement based on whatever was decided by others? Zhe is poly, so what rules of generalisation (such as the one I have quoted above) 'should' then be applied?

The rest of the comment I was responding to had other female based generalisation that I also personally find unhelpful, so I will simply use the example quoted above to illustrate the point.

My comment in no way touched on the 'baggage' that we all come with, regardless of our gender. That, to me at least, is a topic that arises from woundedness, which can be experienced with or without a gender lens.

[161803398]

I think the PTB started the whole free love thing in the 60s. I had to suffer with this in the 70s because, I am, by nature a one man woman and not really interested in having a variety of sexual partners. I'm not particularly religious and I wasn't exposed to it much because our family is quite relaxed about such things. My Scandinavian grandfather went away fishing for two years in the 30s and came back to the farm to find two more kids there. I can't say he wasn't surprised but he loved the kids and it appears he thought, oh well, I was away a long time. But I hated the 70s "brainwashing" wherein people were made to feel strange if they didn't like the free love and if they felt more comfortable being loyal they were told they were mixed up. It was a big mess and not even nice going out on dates sometimes. I think the PTB would love to break the bonds of loyalty between couples. I saw it happening in the 70s. A lot of people were in a state of being constantly hurt because their boyfriend or girlfriend saw nothing wrong with screwing the world.

Considering people purely from a psychological, biological or anthropological point is view is a huge mistake but one, I think, that the PTB would love to have us make. Its been pushed on us before in the 60s and it was a disaster from an emotional, spiritual and, even a health point of view. If you have sex with someone you have to remember you are also having sex with all the other people they've had sex with. While I tend to experience relationships in a spiritual way and while I do not believe it is possible to form a strong sexual bond with a multiple persons, I do also take the health aspects extremely seriously. I wouldn't touch a guy with a barge pole if he told me he was having multiple relationships and viewed that as the norm.

I have two boy cats. Tell them that jealousy is unnatural. In the end, they have taken time shares in me but I think they are not totally happy with it. My dog also demands my loyalty. If someone has a lot of time on their hands maybe they could handle two relationships physically but no one will ever convince me there wouldn't be conflicted loyalties.

I'm a little concerned about the doctor on the forum getting into this philosophy. My doctor was into it 30 years ago and I saw what a disaster it made of his patients. This isn't a new thing, in case anyone thinks it is. I'm sure a doctor is a big score for the PTB because doctors can influence (and confuse) so many people.