Sex at Dawn, an Anthropological Review of Sex

[Seikou-Kishi]

I have serious qualms about having an affair. If an affair is taken to mean a surreptitious tryst, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to do it. If I was not content with one person, I would find somebody who was of a similar mindset and be with them rather than betray somebody for whom monogamy is important. On the other hand, if the other person knew and was happy with it, I wouldn't see the slightest bit of harm in it at all. I think for me it just comes down to respecting the other person: if you love them more than you hate monogamy, you've made your decision; if you don't then you can leave them and find somebody of a more appropriate fit. (But sleep with those other people only once you've broken off the relationship).

If you make sure to get the interpersonal integrity and respect for your partner down, what does it come down to? Nuts and bolts thrashing about and no more morality in it than hang-gliding.

For me, the distinction is one of "sure, sleep with whomever you like, just never cheat"

I wonder if there are people reading who might think me terribly dogmatic and dictatorial for saying these things. I hope most people will understand my reasoning even if they disagree. We have to remember just because something might be all right by us, it doesn't mean it will be all right by everybody and "I wouldn't have minded if x had happened to me" is not really a sound argument. I wouldn't particularly get bent out of shape if I woke up with reproductive organs or obscene words drawn/written on my face, it's part of most university experiences, but I wouldn't go around with a big marker pen saying "what's good for me is good for you"

[161803398]

Metaphysical bonds are formed between people which, when broken, are more traumatic than broken bones, but unseen and easily denied, even to oneself. Unfortunately, we are living in a society that is constantly traumatizing. Its no wonder what is now happening to the world.

I had this idea the other day: everyone has noticed that people don't think well when they are being emotional. My theory is that it works both ways. The parts of the brain that govern emotion and thought are separate. Just as people don't think well when they are feeling emotional; they also don't "feel" well when they are thinking. I have noticed people who think all time don't feel very much at all and, at the very least, have an underdeveloped emotional experience of life. Hence, my observation that most of my professors at university were full of ****. I do not trust the guidance of academics but it doesn't matter whether I trust them or not because I know better. Others still want to revere them and this is very dangerous because we are talking about a segment of society that is seriously messed up.

So this supposed revelation that we are like the bonobos is making people feel we are advancing in some way; when in fact, they are just letting us get back to square one after a period of degeneration past the age of neanderthals. There's a lot more after square one.

I speculate that the neanderthals might have been more advanced than us in some way because they were "feelers" not thinkers. Since we mated with them, I think that some of our best parts might be neanderthal. The neanderthals, I understand, buried their dead and had a sense of things sacred.

[write4change]

It is my understanding from reading much research that while cromagnon man and neanderthals existed together for about 10,000 years, there is no neanderthal DNA contained in homo sapiens today.

I have read this so much that it is now an assumption. In the wake of all the new anthropology we are discoverying, if someone knows differently I wish they would post with a link.

[write4change]

Posted by Seikou-Kishi (here)
I have serious qualms about having an affair. If an affair is taken to mean a surreptitious tryst, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to do it. If I was not content with one person, I would find somebody who was of a similar mindset and be with them rather than betray somebody for whom monogamy is important. On the other hand, if the other person knew and was happy with it, I wouldn't see the slightest bit of harm in it at all. I think for me it just comes down to respecting the other person: if you love them more than you hate monogamy, you've made your decision; if you don't then you can leave them and find somebody of a more appropriate fit. (But sleep with those other people only once you've broken off the relationship).

If you make sure to get the interpersonal integrity and respect for your partner down, what does it come down to? Nuts and bolts thrashing about and no more morality in it than hang-gliding.

For me, the distinction is one of "sure, sleep with whomever you like, just never cheat"

I wonder if there are people reading who might think me terribly dogmatic and dictatorial for saying these things. I hope most people will understand my reasoning even if they disagree. We have to remember just because something might be all right by us, it doesn't mean it will be all right by everybody and "I wouldn't have minded if x had happened to me" is not really a sound argument. I wouldn't particularly get bent out of shape if I woke up with reproductive organs or obscene words drawn/written on my face, it's part of most university experiences, but I wouldn't go around with a big marker pen saying "what's good for me is good for you"

In the book, this issue of cheating is addressed. He talks about the openness of affairs in European countries and he quotes a governor in the states who was outed with a long term affair replying that it was known in his family. There was no secret within the family of the accomodations being made and why. He said to reporters he did not like being outed but in their reporting they should try and also accomodate the truth.

Since I am an old hippy, I will talk about Rober Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land where Michael Valentine the hero from Mars is accused of being promiscuous. And he is shocked, saying he always Groks. This word has now entered intellectual conversation. Valentine says he only has sex with women who he is as deep in their mind as he is in their body. For a woman, I have had many sexual partners and I consider it a form of seeking. And I have always sought to bring that element of being as deep in the mind as in the body. It is a very, very rare and precious experience. The feedback I have gotten from a few man who are very verbal--is that I am very intense and a couple have said I ruined all other women for them because of that intensity. That shook me up as to my responsibilities about being clear about who I am and what I am seeking. One young man went from a molecular biologist to a roman catholic priest. I have always hoped that I was a very small part of that path.

The other example of good sex in the right way for the right reasons is a cult film from the 70s with a still huge following. On Netflex, it has pages and pages of reviews. Many people say I completely believe in monogamy but I love this movie. The story is about Alan Alda and Ellen Burstyn having a 25 year affair once a year while telling their families they are on religious retreat. The irony is that it is exactly what they are on. The name of the film is Same Time, Next Year and if this subject interests you this film is still very funny, filled with pathos, and highly entertaining.

I saw that film with my lover of ten years and my thirteen year old daughter. It was like a gift from the universe and in many ways it explained everything. The plot revolves around the initial happening and how none of this was planned nor understood even by the participants. The plot is moved forward every five years by the changes that occur thru their lives. They start out one way and wind up completely different at the end of their lives. They talk about how this affair has sustained and enriched their marriages although their spouses are not aware of it. Meeting once a year, it is often difficult for them to make the adjustments to the changes they experience but love keeps them together and they talk about loving one another and loving others. They make clear that how they love another is different not better not worse but different.

At the end of the movie Alda's wife has died and he wants Ellen to now marry him. And she tells him if the tables were reversed he would not do it either. She has to keep the committment she has made to her family. He threatens her that if she will not do it, he will stop seeing her and eventually marry another. She still refuses and he slams out the door. Now I had not seen this movie for over 20 years until a year ago. What I had forgotten is that he comes back and says it will be same time next year. And then he tells her, that his wife had told her best friend and that she had known about it for over a decade but never said anthing because she could see this gave him a kind of renewal that was beyond her and she was happy for him. That is love and understanding at its highest form recognized by people who could not imagine otherwise until they saw this movie.

[161803398]

I have read this so much that it is now an assumption. In the wake of all the new anthropology we are discoverying, if someone knows differently I wish they would post with a link.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/291135

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/...ions-2012.html

[write4change]

Posted by 161803398 (here)

I have read this so much that it is now an assumption. In the wake of all the new anthropology we are discoverying, if someone knows differently I wish they would post with a link.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/291135

This is a peer reviewed journal and presented for peer review conference. I read every word of the article twice. The definitive word in the article is "may." It remains too soon to be a scientific fact but it will generate more research--all to the good. As to rather neanderthals were feelers rather than thinkers that also remains speculation and a lot of it is generated from Jean Aurel's books which I have also read and appreciate. It is a form of science fiction I always find thought provoking. None of the clans she discribes are committed to monogamy. All of them are committed to children.

[161803398]

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/...ions-2012.html

I wasn't thinking of neanderthals in terms of monogamy. Just gave them a mention. I speculate that they, too, were as individual as we are. I don't know anything about Jane Aurel.

[Mad Hatter]

Interesting to note the dirth of input from a male perspective... wonder what thats about..?

[161803398]

http://brainmind.com/SpiritualEvolution.pdf kind of off topic but here it is. Or maybe not totally off topic as I was talking about developed feelings and different parts of the brain.

Well, this guy is talking about them also eating each other so hmmmmm?

[sdv]

From my experience I have developed the following view of monogamy and fidelity: If you make a promise to be 'faithful' to me, it is your choice, your decision and your promise. Don't make me accountable for that. So, if you make such a promise and break it, you have betrayed yourself, not me, and if we have an open loving relationship then I can help you deal with that.

[write4change]

Posted by 161803398 (here)
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/...ions-2012.html

I wasn't thinking of neanderthals in terms of monogamy. Just gave them a mention. I speculate that they, too, were as individual as we are. I don't know anything about Jane Aurel.

Okay, I have now read the other article and took notes. Again the operative words are may and might.

Conclusion of the article, which is directly quoted:

Neanderthals could be more closely related to some Afican populations than others today because Neaderthals actually exchanged genes with some ancient African populations. Or Neanderthals might have sprung from one African poulation among many who lived 250,000 years ago.

As we combine the archaic genome data with our growing pciture of diverse lineages in Africa today, we may discover ancient populations that are not apparent archaeologically. Again, genetics is giving us a totally new picture of the diversity and population dynamics of ancient people.

I found this information interesting and it will expand my data base of thinking. I also consider myself a serious historian and researcher. But at almost 67, I still cannot cut and paste so I had to hand write this and then transpose it to the computer. I did that to answer you coherently. And it is also an exercise in self discipline. New information must be integrated when found before going forward or errors keep propagating.

I am not playing "gotcha" here. On the one hand, you categorically state you dislike and distrust everything I stand for. I have responded to you specifically. I have no idea if I will do so in the future. I have a tragectory of knowledge I will to post on this thread and these detours are not helping. However, it is also part of the process. I would appreciate it if you would cut and paste to the thread what you find relevant to the discussion and not just some link which indicates nothing in itself.

[write4change]

Posted by Mad Hatter (here)
Interesting to note the dirth of input from a male perspective... wonder what thats about..?

This is also addressed in the book. Why we have all this need to control women's sexuality legislatively and politically. Why this became an issue with the catholic church which was the only institution providing answers to these kind of questions for 1500 years. Darwin's theories were the first non catholic response in 1859. The book also discusses what is right and what is wrong about that too.

Having done sexual surragate work and studied sex all my life, nothing is more threatening to most men than a sexually liberated woman who cannot be shamed. They can also be terribly attractive and stars but are disposable if they get out of line: Mae West, Gilda, Marilyn Monroe etc.

[songsfortheotherkind]

My partner is monogamous. I am not. Zhe has no interest in same sex/pansexual relationships. I do. Zhe knew this about me when we got together and is of the personal perspective that our personal choices are just that- personal- and that we have no 'right' or business in trying to get one another to change.

There is, in my perspective, a vast world of difference between partners being open and honest with each other from the outset, or as the relationship progresses- individuals transform and grow, I have known of relationships that have absorbed and transformed the gender changes of one and even both partners, things are not static- and the concept of 'cheating' on a relationship. These are simply not the same thing. Communication and honesty are just two of the things that I deeply value in a relationship; relationships that falter because of 'cheating' have already faltered beforehand, is my experience, from lack of the two qualities mentioned, if not in combination with others.

Commitment is not the territory of monogamy; commitment, in whatever form partners agree such commitment takes, is also prevalent in poly relationships and can even be present in f*ckbuddy arrangements. Commitment, tantric level experiences, honesty, connection, love, affection, caring- these are not the domain of purely monogamous relationships. Multiple sexual relationships are not all 'free love bonobo style' arrangements- in the ones I know, it's entirely the opposite. Has anyone here read The Ethical ****? I found this to be excellent relationship perspective irrespective of whether poly is part of the foundation or not, which is really my experience: what does monogamy have to do with the quality of the connection? It's only relevant for the individuals concerned, the parameters on which their personal relationship was created, it has nothing to do with a rule of thumb.

[write4change]

Songsfor the other kind, that was a most excellent post and I will see if I can obtain the Ethical ++++ from Amazon. Thank you so much. You express beautifully how I have come to terms with my life.

[161803398]

On the one hand, you categorically state you dislike and distrust everything I stand for.

Who said that? Sorry but I don't know you personally, so I could not say anything like that.

[songsfortheotherkind]

Posted by write4change (here)
Songsfor the other kind, that was a most excellent post and I will see if I can obtain the Ethical ++++ from Amazon. Thank you so much. You express beautifully how I have come to terms with my life.

Thank you, I have been greatly enjoying your contributions on this thread also. It has been partly my path in growing more accepting and loving towards my Self in how I express relationship that I was led to the concept of Sui Generis; if I cannot accept my Self, how can I truly accept another? That was my take on my personal evolution, anyway, and it has proven to be a wonderful adventure so far.

I am, however, boggled by the removal of the S word. 0-o For those wondering, the word is S-l-*-t, with u being the missing letter.

[write4change]

Posted by 161803398 (here)
Metaphysical bonds are formed between people which, when broken, are more traumatic than broken bones, but unseen and easily denied, even to oneself. Unfortunately, we are living in a society that is constantly traumatizing. Its no wonder what is now happening to the world.

I had this idea the other day: everyone has noticed that people don't think well when they are being emotional. My theory is that it works both ways. The parts of the brain that govern emotion and thought are separate. Just as people don't think well when they are feeling emotional; they also don't "feel" well when they are thinking. I have noticed people who think all time don't feel very much at all and, at the very least, have an underdeveloped emotional experience of life. Hence, my observation that most of my professors at university were full of ****. I do not trust the guidance of academics but it doesn't matter whether I trust them or not because I know better. Others still want to revere them and this is very dangerous because we are talking about a segment of society that is seriously messed up.

So this supposed revelation that we are like the bonobos is making people feel we are advancing in some way; when in fact, they are just letting us get back to square one after a period of degeneration past the age of neanderthals. There's a lot more after square one.

I speculate that the neanderthals might have been more advanced than us in some way because they were "feelers" not thinkers. Since we mated with them, I think that some of our best parts might be neanderthal. The neanderthals, I understand, buried their dead and had a sense of things sacred.

I believe you stated that most university professors are full of **** and you do not trust academics. Plus people who think all the time, which I do, don't feel much. A segment of society of society seriously messed up. Those are pretty sweeping and rather insulting generalizations and they all apply to me as I see myself but as you say--you don't know me. This kind of judgment is beyond the pale and stops any kind of progress towards education, much less, enlightenment.

I am not getting angry because that is not what I want to send out to the universe. I am gently and consistently trying to point out to you what you are doing and I am informing you that the game you are playing is not worth doing.

[pharoah21]

I started a thread a few months ago immediately after breaking up with my girlfriend, asking questions about these very issues being discussed. I asked 'what is wrong with cheating' but obviously with the way I worded it, people would not answer the question, and all they would say is "Cheating is wrong! Even the word is bad!".

Let me give you an honest description of who I am and how I felt during the relationship I was in. I am the kind of guy who has quite a feminine energy. Since I was about 14, most of my friends have been females, I get along very easily with them. I'm not gay, but I do have a lot of female friends, due to the fact that I'm so open with people and have a tendency to talk to and comfort emotionally sensitive people (who are usually women, men will rarely admit to this). I've been playing high intensity sports all my life (still only 23), and would definitely say I have high testosterone levels. I love to have high energy fun, with no restrictions, and I love to be physically intimate, so long as the energy and the connection is there.

When I met my girlfriend, I became infatuated with her, and did the whole 'be together forever' thing. At the start, I had no desire for any other woman. I was completely in love, so no one else was needed. After about 10 months or so, I started feeling tempted with other women. Either girls from work, or just girls at clubs/bars were starting to look very attractive to me. I love all kinds of women, tall, short, thick, thin etc(does this make me a womanizer?) and the sex life between me and my partner was starting to feel a little boring/routine.

Anytime I would have thoughts of another woman, I would try DESPERATELY to change them, I wouldn't look at girls on the street, and do anything I could do to protect my mind from them, so as to keep my mind 'clean and pure' for my woman.

The problem was, this type of isolating behavior started to interfere with even the casual female friends I had. I was cutting myself off from the world in order to keep my relationship intact, which was quite extreme, but I loved her too much to let anything bad happen. In the end, the sexual restrictions I placed on myself were what was caused the restriction of sex between my partner and I. I was restricting my mind from enjoying the pleasures of even thinking of sex with another girl (which is something most guys do, most of the time), and because it made my partner so jealous, I wasn't even allowed to say that another woman was beautiful. So eventually, admiring a woman in any way, shape or form, was banned, and I no longer felt the urge to be with my partner.......It's like the sub-conscious mind could not differentiate sex with my partner from sex with a friend. I had taught myself that when something looks tasty, don't even think about it, or it will ruin you! I became very sexually suppressed, which was one of the major factors at the time for me developing depression.

The funny thing was, my love for her never changed, up until the very last day, I would have given my life for her without any hesitation, but the one thought that plagued my mind was: If only I could be more emotionally+sexually free and open, things would be so much better between us! Whether or not this thought would have proven to be true, I'm not sure, but I do think it could have helped. The breakup was definitely a HUGE blessing in disguise for me, but I'm more realistic now about the whole monogamy thing.

Cheating on a partner does not mean you do not love your partner, so I see no reason as to why two people should breakup because of it, and as explained in the video, it's actually more natural for us to be promiscuous biologically speaking. But the foundation for society today is set up on monogamy, so Polygamy is definitely not something that is easily understood or practiced, and not something I really totally feel comfortable with anyway, but the word 'monogamish' is PERFECT! I want monogamy, but if some sexual freedom for me (and her) on the side when the urge is there is what would keep sex between us alive, I see nothing wrong with it. The whole reason people get hurt is due to their idea of relationships, or their perception, the way they are taught what a relationship should be. If you can change the way you see it, maybe it wouldn't be such a problem to have your partner in an affair? Besides, I don't think many of us can claim monogamy is successful in any way other than economically.

Some people are cool working only one job, driving only one car, living in only one house, never leaving their country and having only ever experienced one spouse, I'm definitely not that kind of guy. It's not just about sex for me, it's the emotional intimacy, and the connection that I sometimes crave. Placing a ban on it all, being exclusive, it feels wrong, almost evil to me. I can't tell you how hard it is, to have a close female friend who is going through a tough time, needing emotional support, and considering myself lucky just to be able to tip toe around her, hoping my partner would not be jealous or hurt. The world needs more love, minus the contracts, boundaries and expectations.

Now to win the lottery and find me a nice woman who would be cool with something like this.

[9eagle9]

Well no, if there is a contract or an agreement made towards fidelity I'd expect anyone to honor it--for their own honor and integrity. It is their agreement after all, not made from intimidation, one should expect there is an intention to uphold their own agreements.

In an optimal world one partner would inform the other they felt the need to move on but we know that's seldom possible. It would then seem the 'cheating' partner actually engages in cheating when covertly seeking other trysts, before the actual sex outside the relationship becomes a reality. It's peoples need to re-establish themselves in another relationship before ending the first one that results in things like that, because they are insecure.

The Celts avoided this whole nasty issue of agreement breaking by handfasting. The partners bound themselves together for 3 days-literall-tied at the wrist, and then about a year later the subject of their 'marriage' was examined again. If they couldn't sustain a relationship the knot was cut. If things were agreeable they'd leave the knot alone and re-examine their partnership at regular intervals. During these times both couples were expected to uphold any agreements towards each other, and then if the terms of the relationship were dissolving it was known to both parties that neither were caught in a ugly relationship. When the time came they could separate .Or rather , cheating couldn't become an issue, both couples knew and honored the concept of hand fasting and it's intention.Basicslly a sort of marriage ritual that asks the partners to honor their agreements for a duration of time(s) and then if neccessary dissolve it or re-negotiate it. Or re-affirm it.

Posted by Seikou-Kishi (here)
I have serious qualms about having an affair. If an affair is taken to mean a surreptitious tryst, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to do it. If I was not content with one person, I would find somebody who was of a similar mindset and be with them rather than betray somebody for whom monogamy is important. On the other hand, if the other person knew and was happy with it, I wouldn't see the slightest bit of harm in it at all. I think for me it just comes down to respecting the other person: if you love them more than you hate monogamy, you've made your decision; if you don't then you can leave them and find somebody of a more appropriate fit. (But sleep with those other people only once you've broken off the relationship).

If you make sure to get the interpersonal integrity and respect for your partner down, what does it come down to? Nuts and bolts thrashing about and no more morality in it than hang-gliding.

For me, the distinction is one of "sure, sleep with whomever you like, just never cheat"

I wonder if there are people reading who might think me terribly dogmatic and dictatorial for saying these things. I hope most people will understand my reasoning even if they disagree. We have to remember just because something might be all right by us, it doesn't mean it will be all right by everybody and "I wouldn't have minded if x had happened to me" is not really a sound argument. I wouldn't particularly get bent out of shape if I woke up with reproductive organs or obscene words drawn/written on my face, it's part of most university experiences, but I wouldn't go around with a big marker pen saying "what's good for me is good for you"

[9eagle9]

LOL. That is not a theory its a reality, which has prompted so much drama on this forum. Back in the day before the rush of new age junk religions when one began to step into spiritual journey one is asked to learn how to balance intellect and emotion. If one has too much intellect, I agree, one becomes robotic, and too much emotion one becomes a basket case unable to think critically or respond but to only knee jerk and react.

We learn to get emotions that are self prohibiting or limiting out of the way. People don't know what they are feeling. And often times there as some that should be discussed factually not with a lot of emotiona in it. Like politics, economics things of that nature. You notice in the US our democratic and republican parties cannot discuss issues of a practical nature like economics and health care, without creating an emotional platform for themseves to manipulate the public with. Doesn't matter that there's 5 million kids living in poverty in the US, we have to save the whales or the rights of the pre-concieved child.

Intellect is required as much as much as emotion, because one's higher intelligience is.....intelligient .It''s intellectual. If someone is so emotionally bound up in thier own emo issues they can't process their higher intelligience.

There are bonds of metaphysical nature between people. Some are not healthy and are called attachments. One is emotionally attached to another in a way that isn't love, its self servnig and parasitical. One NEEDS the other person to prop up their self identity and security. What people mistake for love. Low emotion, its dense and sticky.

Real bonds of love seldom cause trauma. It doesn't have conditions put on it.

Posted by 161803398 (here)
Metaphysical bonds are formed between people which, when broken, are more traumatic than broken bones, but unseen and easily denied, even to oneself. Unfortunately, we are living in a society that is constantly traumatizing. Its no wonder what is now happening to the world.

I had this idea the other day: everyone has noticed that people don't think well when they are being emotional. My theory is that it works both ways. The parts of the brain that govern emotion and thought are separate. Just as people don't think well when they are feeling emotional; they also don't "feel" well when they are thinking. I have noticed people who think all time don't feel very much at all and, at the very least, have an underdeveloped emotional experience of life. Hence, my observation that most of my professors at university were full of ****. I do not trust the guidance of academics but it doesn't matter whether I trust them or not because I know better. Others still want to revere them and this is very dangerous because we are talking about a segment of society that is seriously messed up.

So this supposed revelation that we are like the bonobos is making people feel we are advancing in some way; when in fact, they are just letting us get back to square one after a period of degeneration past the age of neanderthals. There's a lot more after square one.

I speculate that the neanderthals might have been more advanced than us in some way because they were "feelers" not thinkers. Since we mated with them, I think that some of our best parts might be neanderthal. The neanderthals, I understand, buried their dead and had a sense of things sacred.