"Sex at Dawn"

[Lascivious L&L 868]

I think Big Rock may be thinking with the point of view of today's environment rather than the environment of early humans. Pre-agriculture is a very different place than post agriculture. Pre-agriculture is the overwhelming majority of human history and evolution.

 

Women living closely together, as in the clans of early humans, synchronize their periods. So children would tend to be born in clumps around the same time rather than singly as today. It seems logical that this is a survival mode. Women having babies together can share duties, can share breast feeding, and the extended families participate more easily with clumps of children the same age. Breast feeding spaced out those clumps so populations weren't bursting. Infant and young children's survival was precarious, so clumps were needed to get a few to survive. Breast feeding mothers who lost their children could offer their breasts to the survivors. That enhanced the survival of children who remained.

 

I too grew up in an extended family with aunts, uncles, grandmothers and grandfathers around. While it's less common today, it was very common not so many years ago. Throughout recorded history the extended family was the rule not the exception.

[Big Rock 173]

Wow, look what happens when you are gone a few days. slevin, I am merely stating my opinion, If you don't agree, fine, but if I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Name one animal species, whose offspring is born or hatched in a helpless state, that is a herd animal. Chimps are herd animals, their offspring are relatively self sufficient, by comparison to human offsapring, and can safely be raised by the group. Human infants MUST have intense individual care, for several months up to 2 years. This requires the fulltime efforts of both parents. Songbirds, raptors, some canine and primate species, some fish species, do the same. By self-sufficient, I mean being able to walk, and attend the group after a short postpartem rest.

[Big Rock 173]

In the human species, there are just as many examples of the individualist as there are the group mentality. In rural societies the nuclear family is the basic group, and only by extension, the larger group. Look at our own American history. The frontier families who pushed out beyond the fringes of orderly society, and had little or no contact with others for weeks, months or years.

[slevin 1,374]

I love how you state an opinion and somehow it is on my shoulders to prove you wrong. Very backwards.

[Lascivious L&L 868]

Big Rock, what we are discussing concerns pre-agricultural human evolution, which is virtually all of human history. Recorded history is but a blip in comparison. The environment then was very different from the frontier in America. Humans have been in America for only a blip in our history, and that includes Native Americans.

 

There is no question that infants need intense care, care that can be provided by a group of mothers with infants around the same age even more efficently than a single mother can. Fathers who hunt and bring home meat to the group as a group are more efficient than going out on the hunt singly. Women gathering can do it more efficiently if they work together. Pair bonds would not survive as well in the early pre-agricultural environment as small clans operating with intense togetherness and cooperation.

 

Why would efficient cooperation in sexuality and child raising as well as hunting and gathering not be dictated by survival?

[Chicup 42]

Lascivious L&L said:

Big Rock, what we are discussing concerns pre-agricultural human evolution, which is virtually all of human history. Recorded history is but a blip in comparison. The environment then was very different from the frontier in America. Humans have been in America for only a blip in our history, and that includes Native Americans.

 

There is no question that infants need intense care, care that can be provided by a group of mothers with infants around the same age even more efficiently than a single mother can. Fathers who hunt and bring home meat to the group as a group are more efficient than going out on the hunt singly. Women gathering can do it more efficiently if they work together. Pair bonds would not survive as well in the early pre-agricultural environment as small clans operating with intense togetherness and cooperation.

 

Why would efficient cooperation in sexuality and child raising as well as hunting and gathering not be dictated by survival?

 

Being there is no evidence of this and great apes don't raise their young creche style this is all just opinion.

 

Lets not forget the concept of the selfish gene. This is why I care more about my children than my sisters and more about hers than my neighbors.

 

While a giant fuck everyone who cares who the father is, raise them all equal and together sounds great, it would quickly lose to those who made sure THEIR genes were in the next generations.

[Big Rock 173]

I love how you state an opinion and somehow it is on my shoulders to prove you wrong. Very backwards.

I state an opinion. You can agree or disagree. But you are the one being confrontational. You challenge my sources, question my wisdom or lack of it, and instead of defending your OWN opinion, you attack mine, then can't understand why I defend myself?

[Big Rock 173]

Big Rock, what we are discussing concerns pre-agricultural human evolution, which is virtually all of human history. Recorded history is but a blip in comparison. The environment then was very different from the frontier in America. Humans have been in America for only a blip in our history, and that includes Native Americans.

 

There is no question that infants need intense care, care that can be provided by a group of mothers with infants around the same age even more efficently than a single mother can. Fathers who hunt and bring home meat to the group as a group are more efficient than going out on the hunt singly. Women gathering can do it more efficiently if they work together. Pair bonds would not survive as well in the early pre-agricultural environment as small clans operating with intense togetherness and cooperation.

 

Why would efficient cooperation in sexuality and child raising as well as hunting and gathering not be dictated by survival?

L&L, would it not be even more efficient and significantly easier if the father only had to produce food for 3 mouths instead of 30, and a mother had to provide care for one infant instead of many? I doubt very much if pre-historical mothers were as concerned about the group's children as much as she was concerned about her own. Human Evolution has consistantly moved from the herd mentality to that of the individual, particularily in mating and sexual matters, why?

[Big Rock 173]

The progression is simple. From the individual, to the family, to the extended family, to the larger social group, and so on. Humans aren't sheep. To extol the group above the individual is regressive, in my opinion.

[Lascivious L&L 868]

Chicup, there is evidence for this. Sex At Dawn detailed it. I understand that Red Queen had a different take, but the author's take had less evidence and was based more on the author's opinion, a similar opinion to yours expressed similarly. I did not find the Red Queen author's opinion backed up with much evidence, similar to yours.

 

The evidence on early human's sexuality is certainly not anywhere complete, thus the competing theories. I found Sex At Dawn's evidence and integral logic more compelling than Red Queen's, as far as the evolution of early humans' sexuality. The Red Queen's main thrust was the why of sex and there the author dealt with the evidence of the competing theories of why sex exists. But in the section dealing with the sexual style of early humans, the author mainly expressed his opinion.

 

Sex At Dawn dealt completely with the sexual evolution and style of early man, citing what evidence there is and presented a logical and coherent theory of the clan style multi-partner nature of early human sexuality.

[Chicup 42]

The difference is that the Red Queen fits with observed behavior. Unless we have 'evolved' from some earlier chimplike state in the last 20k years, then I see no possible chance for Sex at Dawn being completely correct.

 

Neither book gives life long monogamy as a 'natural' human state.

[GoNatural 104]

While I find faults with some of the conclusions of Sex at Dawn, mostly from an evolutionary psychology stand point, its not a bad place to start. I think The Red Queen does a better take on the idea.

Thanks for that input. I've considered The Red Queen before, as well as Sperm Wars.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,027]

Sex and Dawn is once again available on The Kindle.

[Sweet.Pea 15]

Somebody put this book into my hands because she believed it would help with the healing I need from coming out of an abusive relationship. My former husband, I now realize, did treat me as property. The notion that men posessing women is not the natural state comes out very strongly in this book. I am finding courage in this idea as I was believing at one time that I would never again let anybody "posess" me sexually. I now see that posession does not have to be part of a relationship.

 

I recommend this reading.

[Chicup 42]

Somebody put this book into my hands because she believed it would help with the healing I need from coming out of an abusive relationship. My former husband, I now realize, did treat me as property. The notion that men posessing women is not the natural state comes out very strongly in this book. I am finding courage in this idea as I was believing at one time that I would never again let anybody "posess" me sexually. I now see that posession does not have to be part of a relationship.

 

I recommend this reading.

 

Women can't be bought until you have the currency to buy them with. Fornmost societies this did not happen until they had agriculture.