Sex At Dusk

Just what is our sociosexual evolutionary heritage?

Here is a comment left by Christopher Ryan, author of “Sex at Dawn“:

The ‘ancient biological reasons’ that you’re referring to are currently being called into question by serious primatologists and anthropologists.

It is not really obvious that ancient homo sapiens really gave a fuck about paternity, because it wouldn’t have been obvious to them how sex and reproduction were actually related considering everybody was banging everybody.

Also add to this the fact that not only are women naturally promiscuous, but men are attracted to other men having sex with women ( your web browser history will back this up. )

This is why women scream during sex. to attract more men to join the fight. Literally, almost, considering the fight that takes place inside the woman. Not only does one sperm compete against millions of your own, but millions of other men. Considering women’s immune system treats sperm as invaders, women select their mates on a cellular level regardless of what their instincts might tell them.

A lot of this research calls the science behind the alpha male / game worldview into question. It isn’t that I’m arguing against evolutionary biology, either. I’m arguing for it, against a conception of it which mistakes our very recent cultural shifts ( agriculture ) as a constant in our 200k year + history.

It only made sense for men to care about virgins with the invention of private property which is passed down along paternal lines, agriculture, and a division of labor. This is a cultural adaptation not an ancient biological fact.

How do we know ancient (i.e. pre-agricultural man) didn’t give a fuck about paternity, or that they didn’t know that sex eventually led to children? And if it’s true that they were unconcerned with who’s the daddy, what relevance does this have for modern post-agricultural humans, who have had 10,000 – 12,000 years to evolve a different reaction to the threat of false paternity and female sluttiness? We now know distinct traits can evolve rather quickly in different human population groups. See: Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, northern European lactose tolerance.

From what we know of modern hunter-gatherer societies (the Yanomamo, for instance), homicide rates are incredibly high. Something like 30% of men in those tribal societies are killed off by acts of male-on-male violence. This would release some of the competitive pressure on the men for mates. In a society with a heavily skewed male-female ratio favoring men, “everybody banging everybody” wouldn’t elicit as much of a jealousy response if each man was spreading his seed with multiple women, increasing his chances to procreate.

Women are naturally promiscuous, true, but to a lesser extent than men and in a different way. Women’s impetuous promiscuity is a function of their ovulatory cycle, in large part, where they seek alpha genes one week out of the month. Men’s promiscuity is noncyclical. Men can cheat whenever and wherever, and can do so whether in love or out of love with their primary partner. Women are often emotionally unable to cheat if they are in love with their partner.

Addressing Ryan’s other points, there is no evidence that men in any significant number outside of a tiny fetishist minority enjoy cuckold porn, or are attracted to other men having sex with women. If you look at porn, you’ll notice that the most popular videos (really, 90% of the videos on major porn sites) block out the male actor’s face. The camera zooms in on the penetrating cock and the woman’s body and face contorted with (albeit faked) pleasure. The man’s face and chest are deliberately excised from as much of the sex scenes as possible. What men really like to watch is women having sex with a disembodied cock, (hence, point of view porn, which is very popular), into which the viewer can imagine he is the one fucking the girl.

Do women scream during sex to attract more men to the fight, or to warn other men away? I don’t see how the former is more clearly the reason than the latter. Or is there another explanation why women scream during sex? Perhaps to advertise their attractiveness to alpha males to other women, as a sort of status competition?

It’s understood that the penis is shaped like a sperm scoop, and that this is evidence that there is some amount of sperm competition resulting from female promiscuity going on. But there is also the powerful emotion of jealousy, a painful emotion which is not socially constructed, but is instead a visceral hindbrain reaction in the majority of men to thoughts of their women fucking other men. Did jealousy really evolve in just the last 10,000 years, or has it been with humanity for eons? It is possible that jealousy is a more recent evolution in the human psyche, and perhaps there are population group level differences in how much jealousy is experienced as a motivating impulse. (Maybe Africans feel less jealousy than Asians toward cheating partners.)

Whatever the evolution of jealousy, it is clearly an indicator that men DO give a fuck about paternity, and are NOT Ok with promiscuous women as long term partners who have been chosen to carry their young. If virginity weren’t valued by men, there would be no market for it. But in many large scale societies, not only is there an implicit market for virgins, there is an overt market for them. Did the invention of private property cause this powerful drive in men to seek out virgins in many parts of the world, or has the drive been a part of the neuronal network of the male brain for longer than that? Occam’s Razor normally falls on the side of biological imperative rather than social construction, as the latter is rarely an answer for anything except as a comforting illusion to help feminists and assorted blank slate lefties to sleep at night.

Bottom line is that there seems to be evidence for some kind of a balance between the sperm competition-female promiscuity nexus and mate guarding jealousy, and that this balance varies by population group. (r selected populations may lean more toward the large male genitals-female promiscuity part of the spectrum.) Double bottom line: Do you really want to live in a society where men don’t give a fuck about paternity and “everybody is fucking everybody”? We already have an example of what such a society might look like: sub-saharan Africa.

***

Interesting comment left by Rum:

What is the advantage to a woman of being less-than-aware of her actual arousal? It helps with her pretending to love a type of guy that her pussy really does not want. After all, if we accept the 80:20 rule regarding men and gina tingles, a lot of women are doomed to be paired via monogamy with a guy they never truly wanted – for sex. It is simple math. How could too much awareness of her true pussy-feelings help her attract a beta? It is just an extra burden for her to carry. So nature gives her an anesthetic for those unwelcome, burdensome insights.

This angle deserves further reflection. A lot of supposedly low libido women are simply women who settled for resource providing beta males who don’t sexually excite them. It’s already been shown that women are more likely to orgasm when they step out with an alpha male during that golden week of ovulatory sluttitude. If women were consciously aware of the connection between what they find attractive and what arouses them — in the same way men are aware of the connection — then women might be less inclined to remain loyal to the beta provider, and thus jeopardize the raising of their young. Or maybe the arousal ignorance is the cause of the infamous female caprice, which serves as a mate-selecting strategy ensuring that only men who are good with women will be able to navigate her seemingly illogical whims.





Comments


  1. wow, a lot of conjecture to refute conjecture, followed by some seriously conclusory conjecture.

    Like


  2. Isn’t the proof of Alphadom is that humanity has descend from 80% of women but 40% of men? Likewise isn’t it obvious that humans relationships are polygynous – women would rather be in a time share relationship with an Alpha male than be in a full-time relationship with a Beta male. If anything is skewed it’s that women now have access to birth control so they don’t get pregnant to an Alpha male in their teenage years. However it should desirable that the best males and females make healthy babies during their prime fertility years and the crap males and females don’t make any babies at all lest genetic crapulence spread throughout the human race. Maybe banning birth control and abortion is the answer.

    Like


  3. on August 25, 2010 at 11:53 am Is it just me?

    *yawn*
    Too much pseudo-intellectualism (repeatedly) here.
    The best thing on this blog lately is when readers tell their stories of personal experience.
    Not when Chateau (or the readers) try to come on like some impressive college professor lecturing.
    More stories of personal experience please!

    Like


  4. Don’t know what this Ryan fellow is smoking – the drive for paternity and dominance is the most powerful of all animal drives:

    Anyone from a farm who ever saw two bulls fighting could tell you that.

    And jealousy is more than some social construct – look at the atrocities it has led people to throughout history.

    And cuckolds have been the objects of pity since the beginning of time.

    Hear that this Ryan book is popular with the polyamory folks. Don’t think it’s going to win many converts among non-deviant folks.

    Like


  5. Is it just me,

    There’s always Penthouse letters.

    Like


  6. @Is it just me?

    It’s just you.

    The whole reason this blog is popular is because of the authors powerful insights.

    Like


  7. The explanation to why women scream during the act goes way off line. Nothing is providede to back up the idea that this would be cause she wants to attract more men to join the bang. Why is the simplest explanation ignored? With this i mean that the cause could as well be pleasure and/or pain. Besides not even all women scream. And among those who scream, wonder what the explanation would be to scream even louder during butthex…

    Like


  8. I just finished reading this book last night and while it contains some interesting tidbits about ball size and dick size/promiscuity correlations, it’s clear that Ryan and his spaniard cougar co-author have a political axe to grind.

    The book is divided into three sections. The middle section is an effort to prove that Steven Pinker is an idiot for suggesting prehistoric man was violent. Another chapter aims to show that foragers had long life spans and were 6 feet tall. They even quote Jared Diamond to the effect that civilization is mistake that leaves us worse off. Life was nasty brutish and short for city dwellers. But not for our Bonobo like Noble Savage ancestors.

    I couldn’t help but think of Voltaire’s note to Rousseau, after the latter had sent him a copy of his Social Contract and his musings on the Nobel Savage: “I have received your new book against the human race, and I thank you for it. Never was such cleverness used in design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit for more than sixty years, I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it.”

    Ryan provides no evolutionary argument for why a group that embraced unknown paternity would have greater success than groups that did not. He offers vague arguments about how this leads to greater solidarity and cooperation, but he doesn’t provide any evidence. He merely exalts the bonobo and superstitious poor people who think their babies have three fathers.

    According to Ryan, the main condition necessary for bonobo-like peaceful orgy is a fierce egalitarianism driven by coercive envy. If the choice comes down to eking out an existence in egalitarian squalor or choosing to be extraordinary and standing out, aiming for all that is great, even if it means male-to-male competition for access to giny….I take the latter.

    Like


  9. Serious confusing of cause and effect here. Doesn’t matter if early homo sapien males cared about paternity. By random chance, some would. If they were more successful at reproducing, the trait survives and becomes “natural”.

    Like


  10. For Is it just me:

    “Women are often emotionally unable to cheat if they are in love with their partner.”

    That’s certainly been my experience. But apparently not too many women are in love with their partners.

    Like


  11. “This is why women scream during sex. to attract more men to join the fight. ”

    This gave me a nice, cozy feeling.

    Like


  12. Also, you need an agent, or you need to approach a publishing house and get yourself published. You have more than enough material sitting right here. if you wanted to be lazy, you could even just write up a compilation of your articles.
    It needs to be done.

    Like


  13. on August 25, 2010 at 12:17 pm Harmonious Jim

    “From what we know of modern hunter-gatherer societies (the Yanomamo, for instance), ”

    No, a common mistake. The Yanomamo do slash-and-burn horticulture, which is primitive shifting agriculture, along with hunting-and-gathering.

    Like


  14. ah the disgusting-o-mamo, blech

    or how the study of anthropolgy made me want to wipe out preindustrial “people”

    Like


  15. uch anthropology

    Like


  16. on August 25, 2010 at 12:22 pm Robert Seymour

    A poor reply to Ryan. I agree with you but you fail to adequately address his points. You seem to be reacting when what you need is a reflective response, possibly stemming from more research.

    Like


  17. That women are ignorant of their true desires is perhaps the strangest aspect to women.

    Why is it women will bring me into their room, just to put up heavy resistance? Why do women refuse to admit their attraction for the worst types of men? Why are men the rational sex, and women the irrational sex?

    And the bigger question: did humans evolve this way for survival reasons, or for arbitrary sexual selection reasons? Do our mating patterns have advantages, or is it all because of intra-specie sexual competition?

    Short of building a time machine, there is no way to discover the answers to these questions. Because we cannot falsify any of our evolutionary hypotheses, there can be no science behind evopsych. And yet, even if everything he believes about our evolution is false, Game still reigns supreme as the best way score with the ladies.

    This is why our sociosexual evolutionary heritage isn’t that important except as a intellectual exercise. Something which should bring pleasure to any man. But no matter what we learn about our past, Game will not change. Game does not need anything except the field, which is completely void of evolutionary explainations.

    Like


  18. on August 25, 2010 at 12:23 pm Stud Dynamite

    I’m with comrade Ryan… Evo-psych is very valid theory but in my experience, when applied to real life, cause and effect are mixed up. Dominant/high status/bad boy men are not afraid and don’t disqualify themselves when hitting on women – may I for 100’s time reference Visualizing Beta post. But I think it’s more about being dominant enough rather than being the top thug and that kind of puts a hole in the theory. You actually wrote something along those lines: if more men learn game, more men will get women, rather than still only top 2% will be attractive. Tyler Durden’s secret society post FTW.

    Like


  19. Just because these doubters have been trained in Politically Correct dogma by Discovery! and NatGeo Channel programs to bill and coo over homey camera shots of homies made up to look like Mr. & Mrs. Australopithecus does not make it fact.

    Women don’t scream like idiots when making love with their vibrator.

    Women scream for the audience to grant them more of their favorite thing: attention.

    Like


  20. on August 25, 2010 at 12:24 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

    you’re a genius!!!!!!111111

    you wirte: “How do we know ancient (i.e. pre-agricultural man) didn’t give a fuck about paternity, or that they didn’t know that sex eventually led to children? And if it’s true that they were unconcerned with who’s the daddy, what relevance does this have for modern post-agricultural humans, who have had 10,000 – 12,000 years to evolve a different reaction to the threat of false paternity and female sluttiness?”

    yah zlozlzozozozlzozozlzozlzlo

    fucktards like Christopher Ryan are hired by the federal reserve to convince men that property rights are dumb and stupid and silly and dumb lzozlolzozozzzzozlzoz and that men whsoulodn’t give a fukc who their women is banging because their fatehrs never did

    well fuckface Christopher Ryan ought to stop using airl[planbes internet compyuters transportation laws or anything else created by men and go back to his single mom’s basement and jack off to the porn which shows mens butts lzozozozlzozoozozozozo where teh women scream which he seems to speak fondly ooff

    lzozlozolzozo

    who knows maybe he can secvretly tape tucker max’;s next secretiev taping of butthex iwthout the girl knowing and he can watch tu7cler’s butt as charlotte allen pens a new article about her favorite six foot tall butthexual secrteiv taper of butthex tucker max who rhyme s with goldman sax lzozlzozlzllzlz who also do not wnat u to care about proeprty rights zlozzlzo

    Liked by 1 person


  21. sub saharan african life is bad for many reasons least of which is “everybody is fucking everybody”. you can even argue that “everybody is fucking everybody” because life sucks so much. it is the only form of cheap pleasure around.

    Like


  22. on August 25, 2010 at 12:41 pm Cannon's Canon

    See: Ashkenazi Jewish perfidy

    FIXED!

    Like


  23. You should read the book first, because your “counter argument” is already dealt with in it at length.

    The Yanomami you reference are actually talked about at length in this book. The male on male violence that was observed was by the (in)famous Anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon.

    Just do a google search of his name, and you’ll see it in the suggested search. Napoleon Chagnon Yanomami Controversy.

    What warfare he did observe, he started! by passing out machetes, and playing groups against eachother by making them violate their most sacred custom not to speak the name of the dead.

    The book also destroys most of Steven Pinker’s arguments about the so called prehistoric origins of violence.

    Just think about how stupid it is on its face. What did prehistoric man have to fight over? A population of less than 100,000 or so with the entire world to roam? No land to work or agricultural surpluses to defend. All the food they needed was immediately eaten as it was hunted and gathered. ( Google: Immediate Return Hunter Gatherer.) Free promiscuous sex from multiple women.

    What would our ancient ancestors have really fought for? War, Hierarchy, and possessive love are all adaptations to agriculture, dowry, land ownership, etc. Which, you do have a point, have been around for a long time. 10k to 12k years is plenty of time for some minor adaptations.

    Anyway, you should read the book first because it is obvious from your reply that you haven’t.

    Like


  24. on August 25, 2010 at 12:44 pm Is it just me?

    @ cap’n bob

    “Is it just me,

    There’s always Penthouse letters.”

    Yes cap’n bob, and for those who take pride in ignoring a valid point,
    there’s always the under-handed ploy of misdirection
    by pretending that a valid preference can be accurately represented by just one narrow extreme example of it.

    Like


  25. on August 25, 2010 at 12:47 pm glorious bastard

    I thought one of the whole points of evolutionary biology was that it affected us on a unconcious level.

    Males may not have understood that babies were the result of sex but those males that didn’t enhance their chances of fatherhood did not get a chance to pass on their genes. Therefore evolution favoured those males that DID enhance their chances of fatherhood.

    Like


  26. Mr. Ryan is wrong. The mating practices of higher order primates show it.

    Higher order primates may or may not know that sex leads to reproduction. They know other things. One third of female primates attempt to dupe aprovider into protecting an alpha’s offspring. Gorillas and chimpanzees kill the offspring of other males. Male primates avoid investing effort in other male’s offspring.

    If non-human primates discovered the importance of paternity, then surely homo sapiens sapiens discovered it too.

    Like


  27. It seems that ‘male-chastity’ devices are being pushed through spam e-mail. What has the world come to?
    —-

    http://gizmodo.com/5621453/metal-male-chastity-device-only-1552-per-unit

    Like


  28. on August 25, 2010 at 1:01 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””””Jeff Y.
    Mr. Ryan is wrong. The mating practices of higher order primates show it.

    Higher order primates may or may not know that sex leads to reproduction. They know other things. One third of female primates attempt to dupe aprovider into protecting an alpha’s offspring. Gorillas and chimpanzees kill the offspring of other males. Male primates avoid investing effort in other male’s offspring.

    If non-human primates discovered the importance of paternity, then surely homo sapiens sapiens discovered it too.
    ””””””

    So maybe being sentient beings we can be smart enough to create a situation that we as men expend no effort in raising offspring so therefore don’t care quit as much.

    Like


  29. I could only read through half of that quote. It’s so *unbelievably* stupid. We didn’t grasp how sex and reproduction were connected? Women scream to attract other men to join in the gang bang? Holy fucking balls.

    Like


  30. on August 25, 2010 at 1:05 pm Gunslingergregi

    But yea another man comes up and tries to fuck my woman he is gonna die.

    Even though this ain’t the fucking stone age.

    But look at animal kingdom they don’t play that shit and neither do we for most part.

    On other hand I don’t mind raising the offspring of my womans brother.

    But yea I wouldn’t even want to raise my own offspring with the wrong woman.

    Like


  31. you gotta listen to this,

    proof women want to have sex with alphas but want to marry a provider beta they dont love

    Like


  32. Your arguments about the ancient origins of jealousy are pretty suspect, too. And surprising, since they take it as a given that love and sex are inseparable from one another. YOU KNOW BETTER.

    Certainly there a lot of human behaviors which are instinctual. Hoarding food, for example. But the whole point of culture, especially a close knit hunter gatherer tribe culture, is to encourage some behaviors and discourage others for the good of the group. Sharing was of central importance to foraging societies when it came to almost everything, from food, shelter, child care. It is silly to assume this didn’t include sex. In fact, we know it didn’t because mate sharing rituals have been observed far and wide in these same types of tribal societies.

    Maybe jealousy applied to romantic love ( I doubt it, still. ) But definitely not to sex.

    This egalitarian, mutual-aid pattern persisted for 185-190k years. It is not likely that an environment of sexual possessiveness and monogamous bonding where paternity was even a tertiary concern, would be the most conducive to the sustainability of this way of life.

    Tribal children called multiple men dad, and multiple men had interest in the well being of a child, because it may have been theirs. The odds that a child with multiple males interested in his survival would pass the ultimate darwinian test are much greater than the child with only one male interested. The same that a child with at least one male interested has much higher odds than a child with zero male parental investment.

    And considering our closest genetic cousins are not monogamous, scream loudly during sex, have similar testicle to body size ratios, sperm to semen ratios, have similar male to female size ratios, form similar social tribe units who cooperate on everything from grooming to hunting to child care… it is more likely that we are closer in sexual patterns to them than other to primates. The only ones which are monogamous or polygynous do not form tribes, are much larger than the females of their species, ejaculate very little, have very small testicles compared to their bodies…etc etc.

    Read the book.

    Like


  33. I meant this link

    Like


  34. Everyone who discusses primates compares us to Chimps and Apes. But leaves out the Bonobo. Even though genetically, we are equidistant to them as we are Chimps. Curious.

    Like


  35. on August 25, 2010 at 1:08 pm Gunslingergregi

    But my woman has perfect kid game. She lets me have all of the fun parts and the joy and she takes care of the mundane and also takes joy in it knowing that if I bond to the midget and her she gonna have my ass for life.

    Which that kind of female coniving I can live with.

    Like


  36. Maybe Africans feel less jealousy than Asians toward cheating partners.

    Not true. Black men get much more jealous. Ask yourself this, if you got caught balls deep in another man’s woman, who would be more likely to kill you over it, an asian guy or a black guy?

    Like


  37. on August 25, 2010 at 1:17 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””””Tribal children called multiple men dad, and multiple men had interest in the well being of a child, because it may have been theirs. The odds that a child with multiple males interested in his survival would pass the ultimate darwinian test are much greater than the child with only one male interested. The same that a child with at least one male interested has much higher odds than a child with zero male parental investment.”””””’

    Well when everyone around you is an uncle or aunt or grandmother or gandfather or cousin or 2nd cousin 2nd aunt 2nd uncle. Family is everywhere they do have a reason to look out for you your part of their lineage part of them not because you might be their kid but because you are part of the family. You are their blood relative.

    Like


  38. Could the loud moans of a girl be her subconscious exclaiming she wants a different guy’s sperm…maybe?

    What about a girl who is more silent. Does that mean subconsciously she really is content and doesn’t want her loud calls to attract competition? Keep all to herself.

    Could the same woman be loud sometimes and quiet others?

    SCIENCE EXPERIMENT !!!!!!

    Like


  39. on August 25, 2010 at 1:19 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””’on August 25, 2010 at 1:12 pm The Specimen
    Maybe Africans feel less jealousy than Asians toward cheating partners.

    Not true. Black men get much more jealous. Ask yourself this, if you got caught balls deep in another man’s woman, who would be more likely to kill you over it, an asian guy or a black guy?

    ”””””
    Asian guy which is why it is rare.

    Like


  40. on August 25, 2010 at 1:19 pm Gunslingergregi

    Even I am scared to fuck virgins here.

    Like


  41. I’m not sure that all men are really possessive of their women. I worked with one man who told me that he didn’t care if his wife had an affair as long as he was having one.

    Like


  42. 3 brief points

    Sexual jealously is a human universal, documented in every culture ever studied.

    Human sexual behaviour is nothing like bonobos.
    I once read bits of a book by a French free-love exponent named Catherine Millet (I think that was her name), who supposedly eschewed all emotional ties and relationship ideas in favour for unbridled cock-to-vag action (unleashing the inner bonobo, perhaps). Well… it turns out (in her latest book), that she, ironically and maybe paradoxically, was almost paralysed with jealousy when her husband exercised this free-love philosophy – it drove her nearly insane.

    Consider why you wouldn’t walk around eating a hotdog in an area where some people are starving. And now, with this is mind, think about why we have sex in private.

    Like


  43. Jonathan: “we know it didn’t because mate sharing rituals have been observed far and wide in these same types of tribal societies.”

    I’m interested in this. Could you provide some evidence, links, etc.

    Like


  44. on August 25, 2010 at 1:24 pm Rollo Tomassi

    Evolution most definitely cares about paternity.

    There’s a curious little biological twist, unique to women (and other primates) that can help explain this. Women living (and even working) regularly in close proximity with each other have an interesting tendency to synchronize their menstrual cycles with such precision that many women in the same social grouping often become fertile and menstruate simultaneously. Clinical studies have shown that this fertility sychronization takes place through a process of odorless pheromones that only exclusively female receptors in a woman’s nose are sensitive to.

    The popular conjecture is of course that women becoming pregnant at or around the same time have a better survival potential through social cooperation (i.e. it takes a village to raise a child). However, this biological quirk crosses all cultures from past to present, irrespective of race, cultural origin or agrarian background. The less popular and equally valid theory is that this is a biological mechanism evolved to increase the frequency of multiple mate impregnations by one or a few Alpha males living in a polygamous colony (i.e. a harem society not unlike other primates).

    Once a successful impregnation occurs, a woman’s biology shifts toward fortifying her body for the rigorous energy requirements pregnancy demands. Ovulation ceases – she cannot become pregnant by multiple males simultaneously.

    Liked by 1 person


  45. on August 25, 2010 at 1:27 pm Gunslingergregi

    Or in my life so far the closest I have come to death was from an asian dude they don’t play. They will actually kill you he he he

    They don’t pretend like they are gonna be violent they just do it but not for no reason. There has to be a reason.

    Why I like them so much normally.

    Like


  46. Should have read the book before launching into this. It refutes (soundly) every defense Chateau puts forward.

    Chateau’s perception of the male and female sexual psyches is still perfectly valid — collective experience bears it out — but don’t invest too much ideological capital into the science underneath it. Unless you really, really need to because you define yourself through it. Then go ahead.

    Like


  47. @Rollo.

    Sorry but the body of anatomical evidence that we are not harem builders is too large. In terms of body size dimorphism, testicle and penis size ratio, the anatomy of the cervix and the evolution of sperm competition, we are vastly different from primate species we have observed to be harem builders.

    With respect to these things, we are nearly identical to our two closest genetic cousins: the chimp and the bonobo. Who happen to have multi-male, multi-female, highly promiscuous mating patterns. Just like homo-sapiens did for most of our history. Agriculture changed the game for our species.

    The only question is whether or not 10-12k years is enough for major evolutionary shift in our mating instincts. Quite possible that it is.

    Like


  48. on August 25, 2010 at 1:37 pm Rant Casey - Brazil

    If men dont really care with who is fucking who, to an innate level, then what the fuck “parental investment” is about?

    Unless you truly believe that “it takes a village”.

    But the numbers of children abused by step fathers tell another story: we DO care about parenting. We do care whether a child is our progeny or not. And some men will actually abuse or kill children that are not pertaining to them in a biological level.

    Ryan says: “bla bla bla, It only made sense for men to care about virgins with the invention of private property which is passed down along paternal lines, agriculture, and a division of labor. This is a cultural adaptation not an ancient biological fact.”

    To imply that we only started to care about progeny in a deep rooted level “after the invention of property” is really a stretch.

    The oposite seems more likely: that we invented property BECAUSE we have a natural inclination to abhor cuckoldry.

    It’s a simple premise: we invented it because we felt need for ir BEFORE it was invented. O assume that an invention is preceeded by a natural impulse is a safe assumption.

    Like


  49. Bottom line is that there seems to be evidence

    Note: the book has a lot of problems with it, as I discuss here.

    Like


  50. @Flashman

    I said the same thing in a comment which is still awaiting moderation.

    The book discusses the Yamomami at length. The violence we are told about that was so rampant in that culture was actually caused by the infamous anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon who reported it. Even googling his name brings up the suggestion: Napoelon Chagnon Yamomami Controversy.

    Almost every other ‘defense’ brought up by the Chateau is dealt with very well in the book as well. You guys should read it.

    Like


  51. on August 25, 2010 at 1:42 pm Gunslingergregi

    Actually ok they do play he actually almost killed me twice lol

    Like


  52. What is the meaning of MOUT?

    Like


  53. on August 25, 2010 at 1:43 pm Timothy Webster

    Jonathan, humans are quite varied. Some humans follow chimp patterns, some follow gorilla patterns. Surely you’ve seen the tall guys walking around with women who are half their weight. Jealousy is present even in cats and dogs, sheep and cows. Barnyard experience talking here. Jealousy is universal.

    Like


  54. Not true. Black men get much more jealous. Ask yourself this, if you got caught balls deep in another man’s woman, who would be more likely to kill you over it, an asian guy or a black guy?

    this may be the dumbest comment i’ve seen on the internets this week. and i read a lot of blogs.

    Like


  55. @H. Jim – read further down the wiki page if that is where you got your info:

    “The Ya̧nomamö are known as hunters, fishers, and horticulturists, cultivating as their main crops plantains and cassava in gardens, areas of the forest cleared for cultivation. Another food source for the Ya̧nomamö is grubs. Traditionally they did not farm. The practice of felling palms to facilitate the growth of grubs was the Ya̧nomamö’s closest approach to cultivation.”

    Unfortunately the notes for this are either not online or missing, but to say that horticulture was always a part of their food production might not be correct. Yet there is this from the Hunter Gatherer page on wiki:

    “In the early 1980s, a small but vocal segment of anthropologists and archaeologists attempted to demonstrate that contemporary groups usually identified as hunter-gatherers do not, in most cases, have a continuous history of hunting and gathering, and that in many cases their ancestors were agriculturalists and/or pastoralists who were pushed into marginal areas as a result of migrations, economic exploitation, and/or violent conflict. The result of their effort has been the general acknowledgment that there has been complex interaction between hunter-gatherers and non-hunter-gatherers for millennia.

    Some of the theorists who advocate this “revisionist” critique imply that, because the “pure hunter-gatherer” disappeared not long after colonial (or even agricultural) contact began, nothing meaningful can be learned about prehistoric hunter-gatherers from studies of modern ones (Kelly[16], 24-29; see Wilmsen[17]) Lee and Guenther have rejected most of the arguments put forward by Wilmsen.[18][19]

    Many hunter-gatherers consciously manipulate the landscape through cutting or burning undesirable plants while encouraging desirable ones, some even going to the extent of slash-and-burn to create habitat for game animals. These activities are on an entirely different scale than those associated with agriculture, but they are nevertheless domestication on some level. Today, almost all hunter-gatherers depend to some extent upon domesticated food sources either produced part-time or traded for products acquired in the wild. Some agriculturalists also regularly hunt and gather (e.g. farming during the frost-free season and hunting during the winter). Still others in developed countries go hunting, primarily for leisure. In the Brazilian rainforest, groups which recently did or continue to rely on hunting and gathering techniques seem to have adopted this lifestyle, abandoning most agriculture, as a way to escape colonial control and as a result of the introduction of European diseases reducing their populations to levels where agriculture became difficult.”

    Regardless of what minor bits of agriculture or horticulture some tribal groups employ, they are still the closest extension to paleolithic culture we have that we can observe. Looking at their societies can still give us clues that modern societies can’t.

    Anyway, he is right in that all C. Ryan did was conjecture on various behavior. One conjecture is as good as another unless you back it with factual observations and can disprove the other options. It sounds like that did not occur.

    While I’m a big supporter of evo psych and evo bio, I get annoyed when conjecture passes for fact. No one ever wants to acknowledge that “we just don’t know” or “we can’t ever know.” This death of humility in science is why science has lost its noble, rigorous search for truth and only truth.

    I have yet to read C. Ryan’s book, but from the reviews and from what I’ve read about him and his co-author/partner-gf, C. Jetha, this book sounds like the two of them defending their poly-amorous positions with their field of study. In other words, rather than focus on finding truth they focused on finding facts to support a bias – typical approach in science these days.

    Where does the concept that private property existed only after the rise of agriculture come from and what is the evidence for this? How do we know tribesmen were fine sharing spears? Maybe one guy made better spears than the other. Why would he want to use crappy guy’s spears in the great Paleolithic Marxist Commune? They share loin cloths too? The concept of private property doesn’t have to purely exist with the idea of land ownership. It might be programmed into us because we label and differentiate everything, including our clothes, looks, abilities, etc. There was no equality even back then.

    For anyone interested in old Greek writers, read Aristotle’s comments on sharing women and children communally. Yeah sure, ancient Greece was neolithic culture, but his arguments for a tribe/community regarding the two still have a point. For the few ladies and herbs who read this, don’t get indignant that Aristotle talks about them in terms of property. Back then, they were. Even to this day they are but now the wifey owns you (legally, she really OWNS you as you’ll learn in a divorce) and the kid too; and the the kid gets self-ownership at 18. Many parents would argue 30 though thanks to the economy.

    I’m of the current opinion that the community sharing view of paleo-culture is modern Marxist/socialist bias and self-rationalization for various behaviors/desires. Yeah, I too want an excuse to have a harem that I don’t have to financially support, so bring on the “science” to support this, please! Just ignore the data on how “great” a society such association will produce, it will ruin my post-coital buzz.

    Like


  56. @Rant Casey

    “The oposite seems more likely: that we invented property BECAUSE we have a natural inclination to abhor cuckoldry. ”

    Sorry, but this is silly. It follows then that we would have invented it a lot sooner. Yet we lived without it for 95% of our history.

    There are tribal cultures around today who still believe that babies are the product of accumulated semen. That the more variety of semen you have the more positive traits your child will have. So it is clear that ancient people knew vaguely about the concept, but were not 100% sure about the mechanics. Which seems reasonable, given the many other gaps in their knowledge which seem so obvious to us today.

    The true nature of paternity would not have been obvious to a society where men had sex with multiple women and women had sex with multiple men. It probably wasn’t until we started domesticating animals that the light bulb really went off. Which is precisely what this book argues.

    @Timothy Webster

    Why do you compare us to primates Chimps and Gorillas, but leave out Bonobo? It is a pattern, and I am beginning to think it is a conspiracy. Because if people started mentioning the things we have in common with Bonobo, one might get the impression that we aren’t destined to live in a world of artificial scarcity, of monogamous, boring sex, that we really can be sharing and not-jealous by nature. Oh NO

    Like


  57. Matt Ridley has some good stuff on this in his popular book The Red Queen.

    Anyhow, while agriculture was developing, fertile land was plenty, so people didn’t necessarily pass the farms to their kids, as some tribes still do not today.

    Either way, you see a lot the conjecture that “private property” evolved with farming. But didn’t people defended territories where game was plenty? Didn’t they try to steal each others tools and some of their surplus and their women? In fact, AFAIK animals from birds to lions have private property and will defend it to death. They may have built nests on it, or just guard it for its food and copulation potential. Private property doesn’t seem like something innately human or cultural, as some would like to believe.

    Like


  58. “Do women scream during sex to attract more men to the fight, or to warn other men away? I don’t see how the former is more clearly the reason than the latter. Or is there another explanation why women scream during sex? Perhaps to advertise their attractiveness to alpha males to other women, as a sort of status competition?

    Are you seriously suggesting that rambunctious, noisy sessions are nothing more than signaling someone else?

    Like


  59. on August 25, 2010 at 2:08 pm Timothy Webster

    Jonathan, where is your evidence that humanity didn’t practice private property for 95% of its existence? As BlackSheep defended, private property is innate to most living beings.

    Few people on this blog have fessed up, but I will say it out loud. The right of property in PEOPLE must be restored, before the current mess can be fixed to maximize sex for the most men and financial stability for the most women.

    When you “own” someone, you also have responsibilities to them. The alphas today are not fulfilling any of the traditional responsibilities to the women. The women are “cheap”. This is why they rack up such big scores. If an alpha is burdened supporting 2 or 3 women, and those burdens are hard to ditch (although not hard in case of infidelity) the burden quickly drops most alphas out of their alpha status.

    Secondly, the laws against physical conflict must be eased up. If you injure someone so that they can’t work, or do permanent injury, that should be actionable. But anything less should be allowed. If it isn’t, there is a historical pattern which WILL play out; I refer to Renaissance Italy. Men will take to stabbing and assasinating each other over the slightest of provocations. A simple Irish punch-up where people go to work the next morning is much preferable to stabbings, shootings, and killings.

    So called “alphas” can generally defend themselves in a conflict, one on one. But if they spread their seed to far, they will have to fight too many guys, and will get plowed under. And end up with no women, or few women. That is, in a balanced system. Our system is unbalanced; the betas are shackled from fear.

    I’ve noticed that in our society, alphas are often allowed to get away with physical aggression, but betas are mercilessly punished by the system itself. It is like police officers, bystanders, etc, all have a double standard for violence.

    Can you write an article on this, and ideas for what to do about it?

    Like


  60. on August 25, 2010 at 2:11 pm Stud Dynamite

    Rollo Tomassi:

    The less popular and equally valid theory is that this is a biological mechanism evolved to increase the frequency of multiple mate impregnations by one or a few Alpha males living in a polygamous colony (i.e. a harem society not unlike other primates).

    well, yet point of view in Sperm Wars was completely opposite:
    The fact that the two women in Scene 31 were synchronised suggests that they had not ovulated in recent months. This is a common response to the absence of men (Scene 15).

    FWIW. Basically I’m with Roosh on this: http://www.rooshv.com/malefemale-observations-analysis-and-commentary

    Like


  61. This “Sex at Dawn” guy has been doing a pretty good job of promoting his book by making comments all over blogs, but from everything I’ve heard his book sounds like complete BS.

    It’s like the opposites-day counterpart of Matt Ridley’s “The Red Queen”, except that everything Ridley says seems to be quite well-founded in game theoretic arguments about human evolution, and everything Sex At Dawn guy says seems to be poorly founded in his own masturbatory fantasies where everybody screws everybody sans jealousy. I’d very much like to see a debate between the two.

    He has pretty much the right argument though: the human mind has strong, deep-seated instincts which only make sense in the context of pair bonding and male monopolization of women (or attempted monopolization of women).

    “It only made sense for men to care about virgins with the invention of private property which is passed down along paternal lines, agriculture, and a division of labor”

    This is complete BS, as a visit to any hunter-gatherer culture will prove. Pre-agricultural societies aren’t something lost in the mists of time, they existed in Australia until 200 years ago, and even more recently in the remote parts. While marriage customs varied markedly from tribe to tribe, here’s some random information on marriage among Aborigines:

    http://www.janesoceania.com/australian_aboriginal_anthropology1/index1.htm

    Here we see people participating in complex marriage rituals despite not having much in the way of property. Why? Because women are the ultimate property, and a faithful woman to bear your children is worth far more to a man than a huge stack of boomerangs or a possum-skin cloak.

    Like


  62. Harmonious Jim

    “From what we know of modern hunter-gatherer societies (the Yanomamo, for instance), ”

    No, a common mistake. The Yanomamo do slash-and-burn horticulture, which is primitive shifting agriculture, along with hunting-and-gathering.

    An interesting question is how old tropical garden type horticulture actually is. It’s actually a pretty obvious development from simply gathering. It involves mostly clearing away competing plant growth so that the gathered tubers (sweet potatoes for example, or the tubers behind tapioca pudding) can grow in greater concentration.

    I don’t know to what extent if any it generally involves having transformed the tubers by selective planting into items more edible for humans, the way wheat was transformed for example.

    It’s possible that slash and burn horticulture predates agriculture and may even have gone back to the days of the emergency of modern humans or Homo sapiens sapiens some 75k years ago or so.

    Anyone know a lot about this?

    Like


  63. @Timothy

    Check out The Rawness ( http://therawness.com ) for his piece on the myth of the middle class alpha male. He talks about this violence double standard at length and it is pretty great.

    The evidence that we didn’t have private property for 95% of human history is that humans didn’t settle and have patterns of land ownership which were passed down along paternal lines until about 10-12k years ago. A conservative estimate at how long our species has been around, 200k years… check my math.

    Like


  64. *emergence of modern Homo sapiens sapiens

    Like


  65. It strikes me as an advocacy piece in favor of polyamory more than anything else.

    It’s an open question whether we were pre-historically more like bonobos or more like chimps. The polyam folks want us to believe we were more like bonobos because that fits their agenda more closely, even though jealousy is nearly universal among human men and women alike in virtually all cultures today.

    And even if we were more like bonobos than chimps, and the game changed with the rise of agriculture, who’s not to say that our sexual selection scheme has similarly changed as a result of that? It’s not like we no longer have private property, status differentiation and the like. And in societies which have aggressively tried to stamp out disparities in income and wealth (which according to this theory gave rise to monogamy as a means to hoard wealth in families), we haven’t seen mass reversions to bonobo-esque sexual patterns, or a huge mushrooming of polyamory.

    Like


  66. didn’t read all comments. i’ve never had a threesome so my only observation of the act is via pr0n.

    regardless, pr0n threesomes usually wind up as a sort of scream-o contest between the two chicks involved. sometimes you’ll even see them looking at each other, gauging the others shrillness.

    Like


  67. on August 25, 2010 at 2:27 pm Gunslingergregi

    Yea right all through hitory a strange dude could just walk up on a group of humans and just start fucking woman. riiiigghhhhttt.

    Like


  68. For the record, Karl Marx did not advocate eliminating private property. He advocated eliminating the advantage obtained via control of the means of production. A big part of this was *land*, i.e. agriculture.

    Personal property, i.e. handmade trinkets and what not were all fine and dandy during even the worst Soviet times.

    The strange focus on “sharing” is a modern leftist phenomenon that has taken the egalitarianism of the French Revolution to a whole new level. Even Marx and Engels felt the typical Slavic peasant and Negro were both incapable of functioning within a communist society.

    Cultural Marxism is so named, not because it directly stems from Marxism, but more because its initial adherents were devout self-described Marxists.

    Liked by 1 person


  69. Homo sapiens have been around for about 200-150k years. The DNA date estimates actually differ for men and women.

    But most physical anthropologists now think they see a real change in the human tool kit around 75k years ago. This was first seen and is I believe still most dramatically seen in so called Cro Magnon man in Europe going back around 35k years, but has over the last few decades also been found a bit less dramatically in the Middle East and Africa going back around 80k years or so I believe.

    Like


  70. on August 25, 2010 at 2:31 pm Stud Dynamite

    You jealousy guys have a point if you talk about your monogamous mate that you guard. Now, those who had experience having modern player mini-harems – do you care who else your fuck-buddies fuck? Not raw-dogging-wise, but were you actually jealous?

    Like


  71. on August 25, 2010 at 2:35 pm Rant Casey - Brazil

    @ John

    “The oposite seems more likely: that we invented property BECAUSE we have a natural inclination to abhor cuckoldry. ”

    Sorry, but this is silly. It follows then that we would have invented it a lot sooner. Yet we lived without it for 95% of our history.

    Let’s see how it follows:

    “We lived 99,9999% of our history without peniciline. Therefore its silly to assume that we discovered it because we needed – because we had a natural inclination to overcome infections.”

    You have figured out we could expand it ad eternum.

    Point being: just because it took some time to be implemented, it doesnt mean we were not inclined to do so.

    When you think about it, implementing private property and heraldity requires some previous level of development, such as tool making, craftsmanship, pottery,etc.

    There is no point in private property when there is nothing but a few bushes to call “private”. There is no reason for sophisticated sense of property in a gatherer society.

    But everything changes when there is work involved (i.e: transformation of nature, and the correpondent effort and energy expended in the process).

    Work generates GOODs. Property implies the there is an object to be possessed. Land, tools, crops, and “human resouces” (sons that will grow and add to work).

    Concerns of long term survival are absolutely compatible with heraldy concerns.

    It doesnt matter if 95% of hour history we didnt have property. Most of our history there was nothing to be owned as well. Jealousy could exist, but in the lack of a greater attachment, it wasnt a sufficient force to drive the human behaviour so radically towards heraldity.

    It changes when work comes to stabilish a relationship with objects – attachment – increasing also the interdependence of the groups.

    An ape do not depend on the group to eat. He eats at any given time, and copulates with any disposable female. The offspring will be fed by the mother, and then will eat on its own from the same collective resources – there is no work in this world.

    As the human ape moved to valleys, they depended on each other to hunt, and gather, and furthermore developed agriculture. For 95% of our history we didnt have agriculture too, but it is irrelevant: we didnt because there was no pressure of necessity.

    ***

    Fuck its really hard for me to write long in english. The above text must be quite confusing, no matter how clear it is in my mind (but I think in portuguese).

    Like


  72. on August 25, 2010 at 2:36 pm Timothy Webster

    @Jonathan

    Thank you for the link to therawness.com. I am short of time; would it take you long to find direct links to the two blog posts you mention? The one on the myth of the middle class alpha, and the other on the violence double standard? I really want to understand the violence double standard.

    Is it because if Betas started getting more violent, the alphas would have to WAYYYY scale their activities back?

    Like


  73. on August 25, 2010 at 2:37 pm Gunslingergregi

    The mean household income for households headed by persons identifying as White alone was $65,317, $40,685 for those headed by persons identifying as African American or Black, $45,871 for those headed by persons identifying as Hispanic or Latino, and $76,747 for those households headed by persons identifying as Asian alone. Approximately one third, or 36.5%, of all households earned more than the mean income, while 63.5% earned less than the mean.[59]

    Reason why white men need to have kids with asian chicks.

    Like


  74. This myth that hunter gather groups are simply sexual free for alls without marriage rules is just that a myth. It was part of the noble savage myth of the early Boasian school of anthropology. It was first perpetuated due to the relatively high status which white sailors received in many fairly primitive parts of the world such as the fabled Tahiti of old and in what became Rio de Janero as well. What with their huge ships and canon and firearms and all. And strange, different white skin and often beards. It was made “scientific” by the fraud and lies of Margret Mead, who wanted to find that, and ignored contrary evidence.

    Most marriages in HG societies so far as we can tell are arranged ones, with perhaps some degree of girl veto but not a limitless one, and sometimes not one at all. Marriages are arranged typically to create or sustain alliances among bands within the same larger tribe. Or young girls are stolen for brides in bride raiding, which is a major reason for HG tribal or band skirmishing/primitive warfare. Which yeah does have a high mortality rate it’s now been well established archeologically, as well as in observing existing HG groups.

    Like


  75. Women can be very promiscuous and do get bored with monogamy, but they also have a strong desire for domestic comfort and security especially once they have children.

    Like


  76. on August 25, 2010 at 2:41 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””””’Stud Dynamite
    You jealousy guys have a point if you talk about your monogamous mate that you guard. Now, those who had experience having modern player mini-harems – do you care who else your fuck-buddies fuck? Not raw-dogging-wise, but were you actually jealous?
    ””””’

    No never really cared what a woman did who I didn’t give a shit about.

    Like


  77. novaseeker

    It strikes me as an advocacy piece in favor of polyamory more than anything else.

    Yes absolutely. That’s my impression of the book Sex at Dawn.

    It’s an open question whether we were pre-historically more like bonobos or more like chimps. The polyam folks want us to believe we were more like bonobos because that fits their agenda more closely, even though jealousy is nearly universal among human men and women alike in virtually all cultures today.

    Bonobos don’t have warfare. Chimps do, of a sort.

    I’d say we’re a lot more like Chimps.

    Liked by 1 person


  78. on August 25, 2010 at 2:46 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””” with perhaps some degree of girl veto but not a limitless one””””

    They are definetly less submissive than you would think but you must earn it.

    From what I hear the virgins did have full veto they just gave the shit back to the guy if they didn’t want to consumate marriage and yea dude was pissed he he he

    Hell it just happened recently I felt bad for dude but yea chick left him went back to family lol

    Why it probably is more important for woman to be virgins than men he he he

    Like


  79. @ Stud

    Yup. Not worth time or effort to mate guard but I would still feel tinges of jealousy (at the mentioning or allusion of other guys in their lives, pretty sure I was still the only one they were fucking) even if I didn’t show it. I want to monopolize female sexual access whenever possible, doing such as a male is maximizing reproductive outcome from an evolutionary biology perspective.

    Like


  80. I’m glad you commented on this book since it seems to have captured a lot of media attention. Keep up the good work, CR!

    Like


  81. Polyamory is probably attractive to people with a lot of options. I don’t know how much it would benefit the average person with average sexual market value.

    Like


  82. Women can be very promiscuous and do get bored with monogamy, but they also have a strong desire for domestic comfort and security especially once they have children.

    this is the money shot here. it is perhaps the most important difference between women and men is that women tend to be much more risk adverse than men. understanding why this is the case and understanding the consequences of this is the key to this whole war between the sexes.

    Like


  83. “Women can be very promiscuous and do get bored with monogamy, but they also have a strong desire for domestic comfort and security especially once they have children.”

    Laura,

    There are a certain percentage of women who aren’t promiscuous and don’t get bored with monogamy. Perhaps, a larger percentage than male commentors here are willing to believe. It can be partly dependent on life circumstances (childhood, upbringing), but probably largely dependent on personality. (ie if you’re the type of person who doesn’t get bored in life overall, you’re not likely to get bored with monogamy). I don’t understand the logic. Female bored with monogamy adds a new c*ck. Isn’t she eventually just going to tire of that one as well (they’ll be a point at which the new cock is no longer new and crosses the “boredom” threshold, perhaps sooner than the initial cock) and then she’d need a newer one. Wouldn’t this result in an endless cycle of c*ck hunting?

    Like


  84. I have starred another post in my Google Reader

    Chateau, you are a runaway train.

    Like


  85. on August 25, 2010 at 3:16 pm mandy been here a while

    @Jonathan

    Modern tribal hunter gatherers are NOT out anscestors. What a remote Brazillian group does today is not proof of what all of our anscestors did before recorded history.

    Like


  86. on August 25, 2010 at 3:20 pm mandy been here a while

    @Laura
    Polyamory is probably attractive to people with a lot of options. I don’t know how much it would benefit the average person with average sexual market value.

    Strangley the only polyamorous couple I’ve had the misfortune of knowing about were disgustingly obese. I guess if they all look like that, then it works out.

    Like


  87. luvsic,
    Is he pulling it or riding on it?

    Like


  88. Mandy,
    I once watched a movie about swingers and I remember thinking that very few of the people were attractive.

    Like


  89. Johnathan–

    Just think about how stupid it is on its face. What did prehistoric man have to fight over? A population of less than 100,000 or so with the entire world to roam? No land to work or agricultural surpluses to defend.

    First of all there’s direct evidence in archelogical sites that there was a high level of warfare going on, that’s been discovered and evaluated over the last couple of decades.

    Second of all “the nobel savage” has been a central cultural Marxist trope since Franz Boas and his desciples essentially took over almost all major departments of American cultural anthropology in the 1920s and 1930s. Margret Mead, a WASP convert to this at first heavily Jewish group of desciples, was an infamous liar and fabricator of tales of South Paciific free love and non conflict.

    Third of all where do you get this 100,000 humans during all hunter gather days over all the world. Humans quickly expand their population to what the resources and their technology for exploiting them will bear. Malthus was right in that regard. The usual estimation for world human population tens of thousands of years after the expansion of homo sapiens sapiens is vastly higher than that, though there’s a whole lot of uncertainty. Sometimes the figure a million is throw around but I don’t think it’s known at all well.

    Fourth of all, if you don’t realize that certain locations are far easier to do your hunting and gathering in than others, then know now very little about the subject. You don’t think the rich salmon streams of the Pacific Northwest were especially valuable real estate? And so on all over the earth.

    As well the closest bands we can find to true HG’s today tend to do bride raiding and primitive warfare for that reason as well. One has to pay attention to the most successful HG groups and not the ones that are the most marginalized and have essential lost to other peoples.

    And finally leftist cultural anthropologists as most of them are have told plenty of lies about Napoleon Chagnon and his work.

    Like


  90. “It strikes me as an advocacy piece in favor of polyamory more than anything else.

    Yes absolutely. That’s my impression of the book Sex at Dawn. ”

    my impression as well, tho i admit i’ve only read the excerpts on the website (there are a lot of them). the writing style was so annoying don’t think i could bring myself to read the full book.

    is the claim that men are attracted to men having sex with women backed with any evidence? the example of group porn existing seems refuted by all the other sorts of porn also out there.

    looking at the categories on RedTube, we have: amateur, anal, asian, big tits, blowjob (POV), cumshot, ebony, fetish, gay, group, hentai, lesbian, mature, public, teens, and wild & crazy.

    group kinda gets lost in the group, doesn’t it?

    and note particularly that “lesbian” doesn’t mean lesbians. it means 2 hot chicks eating each other’s pussies for the entertainment of the male viewer. i have “a friend” who watches a lot of this category.

    and judging from the “hentai” category, our ancestors wanted to have sex with japanese cartoon characters also.

    Like


  91. BTW,

    Tom Leykis is a fat, disgusting man. I wouldn’t believe any of his personal accounts.

    That said, a lot of this theory and generalities are have a good ring.

    Like


  92. AHE,

    I actually took his porn reference to mean that even watching normal porn is a signal of this cuckhold fantasy.

    Like


  93. Bonobos don’t have warfare. Chimps do, of a sort.

    I’d say we’re a lot more like Chimps.

    Agree.

    Like


  94. @Laura said:

    “Mandy,
    I once watched a movie about swingers and I remember thinking that very few of the people were attractive.”

    Same thing with nude beaches. It’s not what we imagine.

    …the humanity……..

    Like


  95. I actually took his porn reference to mean that even watching normal porn is a signal of this cuckhold fantasy.

    Which, if you’re right that this is what was meant, is quite silly.

    Chateau is right on that point — the porn viewer identifies with the male who is doing the bonking, preferably a disembodied penis and a POV shot. But even in non-POV shots, the identification is with the bonking guy, not watching the bonking guy bonking your GF or wife. There is, of course, a tiny sliver of porn that is about cuckold fantasies, but as Chateau points out this is a very small fetish group, and unlike regular porn, the scenario itself makes it crystal clear that it is cuckolding, and very unlike a “normal” straight porn scene.

    Like


  96. on August 25, 2010 at 3:47 pm (R)Evolutionary

    What a great post, and great discussion that follows. This is the real work that we as humans, and especially us, as Men, need to be doing right now.

    We need to fully understand our subconscious and unconscious drives, which are biologically, hormonally, genetically, and thus evolutionarily derived. Culture has in effect become a shield of ignorance in which humans have been able to hide behind, naive to our deeper nature, our shadow. We are now exploring the shadow through scientific research, through personal observation, communication (blogs like this), and contemplation.

    For me, there is a single bottom line: He is right, men care about paternity, virginity matters, because we are pair bonders, and that is evidenced by the oxytocin & vasopressin pathways that initiate pair bonding, male to female and female to male. Men care about, on a cellular level, their mates and offspring. These pathways did not evolve overnight, and must go back to pre-agricultural times. Heck, these pathways exist in mice, dogs, and lots of other animals.

    Even though we are pair bonders, we are promiscuous pair bonders, and alpha men will always garner the ‘gina tingles. It’s pussy wetness uber alles, and cheating females get gushingly wet from it. Game on, gamesmen.

    Like


  97. I tire of “scientists” who tell me crap like, “oh, ancient people at some nebulous point in time were non-monogamous, therefore it is natural and should be encouraged.” The last time I got this, I heard because male dogs sometimes fuck each other, gay marriage is inevitable and desirable. You know what? Dogs lick their own assholes. That doesn’t mean people should. Same thing with cavemen. As he says; sub Saharan Africa is not much of an example for much of anything, unless you like savagery.

    Even assuming Ryan’s assertions are true, which seems to me incredibly doubtful (the Yanomami, for example: polygamous); who cares? I’m not a caveman or an ape; I like civilization. If no civilization through all of human history does it, we shouldn’t do it.

    Like


  98. “AHE,

    I actually took his porn reference to mean that even watching normal porn is a signal of this cuckhold fantasy.”

    Paul,

    This is taken directly from an excerpt from the Sex at Dawn site:

    “Why do so many heterosexual men get off on pornography featuring groups of guys having sex with just one woman?”

    He could equally ask: why do so many heterosexual guys get off on barely-legal age girls?

    “So many” is so vague. Why are there so many homos? Why are there so many golf fans?

    Is there any attempt to quantify anything in the book? If one wants to generalize, they should have a good sense of what is general.

    Like


  99. Sex at Dawn, Sex at Dusk. Breakfast or dinner after, same diff.

    Like


  100. The following seems completely consistent with the Sex at Dawn “logic”:

    Why do so many men get off watching porn of other men fucking each other up the asses? Could it be because it was normal to our ancestors that men like to fuck each other up the ass? Maybe modern man has made a superficial dichotomy between men who like to fuck women and men who like to fuck men.

    Like


  101. There are a lot of misconceptions about polygamy floating around.

    While it’s true that most societies in history have been polygamous, and that monogamy is basically a Greek and Roman invention, made pan European by the Christian Church (and also promoted around the world after the age of colonialism began), most societies haven’t been very polygamous. I.e. most unions within most polygamous societies are and have always been so far as we know monogamous. Think of polygamy as something only the very top of most societies got to practice, less than 5% of men usually and almost always less than 10%. Only the very bottom of men never got wives in most polygamous societies.

    Also in monogamous societies of European and Christian origin most really successful alphas took mistresses after awhile. The difference is the mistresses weren’t legally wives and if they had children by the highly successful or high status alpha they weren’t entitled to support – though he’d often help her some. Often his mistress would be married to a less high status or less alpha man, who would indeed have cuckold responsibilites for her children by him, because for one thing he’d often not have real proof, just soft proof.

    Like


  102. Bonobos are not as peaceful and free loving as popularly believed. This misconception arose from insufficient observational studying of bonobos in captivity. It is most likely that they’re no less violent than chimps.

    Like


  103. on August 25, 2010 at 4:15 pm Cannon's Canon

    “chimpanzee politics”

    a good book!

    Like


  104. nova,

    the identification is with the bonking guy, not watching the bonking guy bonking your GF or wife. There is, of course, a tiny sliver of porn that is about cuckold fantasies, but as Chateau points out this is a very small fetish group…

    i think you’re right on this, however, you can’t just wish the man away in a boy-girl sex scene. actual cuckold porn is indeed a niche, but what about gangbangs or even two or three guys on one girl?

    there is something arousing about female sluttiness. probably because it is a proxy for sexual availibility. and advertising sexual availibility is how women flirt. granted, the best ones flirt with just enough coyness to keep you guessing.

    i imagine a lot of this has to do with the madonna-whore tension that most men have. men want virtuous women, but if she’s too virtuous she may leave you sexually unsatisfied. on the other hand if you opt for the sexually voracious woman, she may lack virtue. it is similar to the choices women face between alpha and beta men.

    Like


  105. nova,

    the identification is with the bonking guy, not watching the bonking guy bonking your GF or wife. There is, of course, a tiny sliver of porn that is about cuckold fantasies, but as Chateau points out this is a very small fetish group…

    i think you’re right on this, however, you can’t just wish the man away in a boy-girl sex scene. actual cuckold porn is indeed a niche, but what about gangbangs or even two or three guys on one girl?

    there is something arousing about female sluttiness. probably because it is a proxy for sexual availibility. and advertising sexual availibility is how women flirt. granted, the best ones flirt with just enough coyness to keep you guessing.

    i imagine a lot of this has to do with the madonna-whore tension that most men have. men want virtuous women, but if she’s too virtuous she may leave you sexually unsatisfied. on the other hand if you opt for the sexually voracious woman, she may lack virtue. it is similar to the choices women face between alpha and beta men.

    Like


  106. men want virtuous women, but if she’s too virtuous she may leave you sexually unsatisfied. on the other hand if you opt for the sexually voracious woman, she may lack virtue. it is similar to the choices women face between alpha and beta men.

    Hmmm.

    I think there’s a difference in that all women are attracted to alpha, but there’s only so many to go around, so not all women can land an alpha for an LTR or marriage … so she settles for a beta, eventually, or she decides to go it alone. There’s a big argument taking place now among women “of a certain age” as to whether it is better to settle or go it alone, and they don’t use the terms alpha and beta but we can rest assured that the “settle” option always involves a beta. So for women this is simply the result of the demand for alphas far exceeding the supply.

    For men, I think we’re attracted, generally, to different kinds of women for different kinds of relationships. Far from what people often say, men love sluts … for STRs. Men do not generally want to marry a slut, however. Neither do they want to marry a Madonna who is frigid and doesn’t want to have sex, but by and large the kinds of women a guy is interested in having an LTR (or even moreso a marriage with) are quite different than the kinds of women a guy is interested in shagging for a short-term thing.

    I think the difference is that men are attracted to both kinds of women for different kinds of relationships (see, e.g., Bill Clinton — bimbos for sex, smarts for LTR/breeding). Ideally, if a guy can pull it off and has no moral restrictions, he’d like a stable loyal woman as his wife, and a stream of fun sluts on the side for sexual variety. Women, by contrast, are just not attracted to betas, but may end up settling for one under certain circumstances, in which case she will probably be unhappy in the relationship (unless he’s a greater beta etc. etc.).

    In previous eras, more men were alpha (masculinity hadn’t been relentlessly attacked in the schools) and the dating/mating pool for most people was much more constricted due to the fairly hard norm of monogamy — meaning that there were more alphas to go around, but also that a goodly number of women ended up being married to betas. Even the betas in earlier eras were probably much less beta than today, due to the impact of familial sex roles which tend to inflate the man and give him power, but it’s also probable that there were nevertheless a good number of true beta boys married to wives who just loathed them.

    And I do think you’re quite right that men like the sluts in porn because they are the kinds of women men would like to have STR sex with — I think that’s true, even if the sex scene is not group or what have you. It’s the sexual availability aspect that is alluring — but, again, for the STR, not for the LTR.

    Like


  107. Christopher Ryan said:

    “It only made sense for men to care about virgins with the invention of private property which is passed down along paternal lines, agriculture, and a division of labor.”

    Question: with the invention of private property, were women really treated as property?

    That is the usual claim, but think about it: If they were, wives would have been traded like pigs and oxen and wheat. Were they?

    If they weren’t, why?

    Like


  108. This Christopher Ryan guy doesn’t sound like he understands evolution:

    “It is not really obvious that ancient homo sapiens really gave a fuck about paternity, because it wouldn’t have been obvious to them how sex and reproduction were actually related considering everybody was banging everybody”

    It doesn’t matter if humans consciously knew of the connection between sex and pregnancy. Guys who had impulses to keep women from having sex with other dudes would do better reproductively than guys who didn’t, and impulses to act as if paternity mattered would evolve regardless of our conscious understanding.

    If you look at the amazon reviews for this book, there’s evidence that the 5 star reviews are fake. Seems like this guy is just some psychologist with no real scientific background or understanding, who spams amazon and blogs to make it seem like his book and ideas are worthwhile.

    Like


  109. on August 25, 2010 at 4:58 pm Stud Dynamite

    novaseeker, no not quite. Doubt many women would want to marry promiscuous bad boys either (good provider smart and strong leader of men is actually a *beta*, there’re many other letters to follow). But that is what is sexy. There are tons of situations when a woman would fuck you but wouldn’t even date you. That is the whole evo-psych/game point – they’ll fuck (or at least tingle for) you bad boy lover while trying snatch/keep the best option provider. So j r is right, it is roughly the same question. Secret society vs not.

    Like


  110. If women were treated merely as property, why wouldn’t most every guy have pimped his wife’s pussy out for more money?

    Like


  111. I’m still sold on Ryan’s core argument: we only turned possessive after agriculture created a demand for resources. Why should paternity matter before inheritances? There’s really not much of an alpha attraction issue either – chicks could still sleep with alphas more than betas because they’re more attracted to them.

    Female sexual moans isn’t repelling at all! It piques your curiosity, makes you wonder what those two in the apartment next to you are up to. If they were intended as a signal for us to stay away then we wouldn’t be so attracted by they. Heck, they probably wouldn’t exist in the first place.

    And yes, there is a lot more porn featuring “gangbangs” (*not to be confused with bisexual group sex*) then one dude with a bunch of chicks.

    Look, if we were supposed to monogamous, then it wouldn’t be this damn hard.

    —————–

    As an aside, why has there not been a post about this chick:

    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2010/07/31/levs.wedding.without.mate.cnn?hpt=Sbin

    She’s planning a wedding without actually having a suitor, hoping that she’ll come up with one by the wedding day. Surprisingly, she’s at the magical age: 35.

    Like


  112. Private ownership of land may have been a late idea to man because it was plentiful and difficult to defend. You would, however, see hunting grounds, access to water, etc defended by tribes. Private property would have begun with tools and other products of work. You would not give up or share an object that represented hours of work you could have otherwise spent gathering food. A mate would likely be the original private property. I just don’t believe that human nature changes that much. As many have already mentioned, competition for mates and guarding of mates and harems is common in the animal world. A buck does not need to have a concept of paternity to gather and defend a harem against other bucks.

    Like


  113. @Thursday

    “Second, women who only mate with the top males will get higher quality genes for their offspring which means they are more likely to survive and reproduce. ”

    You need to do your research on Sperm Competition and just how vital of a role it plays in human sexual reproduction. Without a question, there is sperm competition. Your one sperm cell has to compete against hundreds of millions of your own sperm, not to mention against all of the antibodies in the female body which are treating it as a foreign invader. The only question is whether or not your sperm is competing against other men’s as well.

    As a previous poster noted, the penis is shaped assuming that it does have to compete against other men’s. The outward thrust motion sucks sperm out with great efficiency. This makes us very similar to many other animals whose penises are designed to thwart previous male semen.

    Sperm Competition gets around your group selection dilemma. Sex is distributed, not so much equally, just extremely liberally. Of that there is much anatomical, anthropological and primate evidence.

    For highly promiscuous species like chimps, bonobo, and humans, selection happens at least as much inside the body on a cellular level as it does outside the body on a psychological / social level.

    Like


  114. madonnas want to have sex, it’s their men who don’t want to have sex with them.

    Like


  115. @AHE

    “Question: with the invention of private property, were women really treated as property?

    That is the usual claim, but think about it: If they were, wives would have been traded like pigs and oxen and wheat. Were they? ”

    Read the old testament. Yes

    Like


  116. Nova —

    but we can rest assured that the “settle” option always involves a beta.

    While I think that’s crudely right, I think it’s oversimplified.

    How women with a lot of status might be able to settle for a lesser alpha, but still think of it as settling a little. An 8 settling for a male 8, instead of the male 9 she thought she could snag for marriage.

    As well sometimes successful women settle for the guy who doesn’t have much overall social status, but does well in small groups and has natural game. A lesser alpha type who’s mostly lesser due to less status. The classic example here is the well muscled and fit gardener or landscaper (renaming himself for status). If he can maintain a certain lesser alpha aloofness and doesn’t fall for the excessive self qualification or lets his wife lead because she has higher overall status being e.g. a doctor or lawyer etc., it might possibly work.

    Women, by contrast, are just not attracted to betas, but may end up settling for one under certain circumstances, in which case she will probably be unhappy in the relationship (unless he’s a greater beta etc. etc.).

    Yeah well at least you threw in the exception for greater betas in there at the end, which is important.

    What women need to feel strongly sexually attracted to men is that they act sufficiently masculine and leading to them. Some greater betas can pull this off, without being good at pickup due to bad programming about what actually attracts girls.

    In previous eras, more men were alpha (masculinity hadn’t been relentlessly attacked in the schools) and the dating/mating pool for most people was much more constricted due to the fairly hard norm of monogamy — meaning that there were more alphas to go around, but also that a goodly number of women ended up being married to betas. Even the betas in earlier eras were probably much less beta than today, due to the impact of familial sex roles which tend to inflate the man and give him power

    Yes. I definitely think so. Women can be attracted to men even if they aren’t among the top 15-20% of men in creating sex gina tingles, if those men are masculine and leading enough. Whether you want to call that more men being at least lesser alpha before 2nd wave feminism and the general shaming of white guys by leftists increasingly since the middle 1960s in schools, school curriculum, TV especially, or higher betas and even betas acting more masculine is really a matter of terminology.

    Like


  117. *Hot women with a lot of status

    Like


  118. ““Question: with the invention of private property, were women really treated as property?

    That is the usual claim, but think about it: If they were, wives would have been traded like pigs and oxen and wheat. Were they? ”

    Read the old testament. Yes”

    There were bride-prices and dowries, sure, but didn’t the trading stop there? Why not, per Sex at Dawn logic, sell your wife’s pussy? Why was there an ancient division between wife and whore?

    Like


  119. Black Sheep–

    Either way, you see a lot the conjecture that “private property” evolved with farming. But didn’t people defended territories where game was plenty? Didn’t they try to steal each others tools and some of their surplus and their women? In fact, AFAIK animals from birds to lions have private property and will defend it to death. They may have built nests on it, or just guard it for its food and copulation potential. Private property doesn’t seem like something innately human or cultural, as some would like to believe.

    It’s virtually always Marxists or leftist fellow travelers pushing “getting back to greater communism/socialism” who do that.

    Like


  120. nova,

    everything you are saying about preferences is a funciton of choice. and that kind of choice is a relatively new phenomenon. historically, people faced a drastically smaller set of options. women either paired off with the best available suitor at the height of her looks and fertility or resigned herself to spinsterhood. men could hold out longer, but if they wanted a family they eventually had to choose one woman (at least in monogamous cultures).

    human preferences tend to be forged in times of scarcity or when it becomes necessary to make a choice between one path or the other. those choices embed themselves as tensions within our psyche.

    for women the tension is alpha v beta. people here like to say that all women want alphas and wish betas would just disappear from the gene pool. if you think about it, that sentence doesn’t make any sense. women may feel that way about a particular beta male, but in order to have high-status men you have to have average and low-status men. everybody can’t be an alpha. so women need betas both because (a) they are a fallback when they either can’t land an alpha or when an alpha won’t take care of them and their kids and because (b) betas are the crowd from which the alphas can stand out.

    further, as someone on this board mentioned, women can’t just come out with a clear choice for alphas. the betas would never play along. women are at their most powerful when betas don’t understand the game. and that’s why women are often ambivalent to how their own selection process operates. in order to conceal the process from men, women evolved to conceal the process from themselves.

    there is a similar process in men and it takes the form of the madonna-whore complex. think about this: men who have no success with women often think that all women are no-good whores. men who have moderate success with women often think women are all sugar and spice. men who have had a lot of success with women know that the only real difference between the madonna and the whore is the circumstances. his ability to manipulate women along the vice-to-virtue continuum is what allows his success. for most men, however, this madonna-whore tension remains unresolved.

    think about female mating strategies as a series of choices ranging from least desirable to most. it might look something like this:

    – settle for a beta and make do (perhaps by cuckolding)
    – find a high-achieving beta and hope his status will increase
    – land an alpha and domesticate him

    only the highest status woman are going to have the most desirable scenario as an option. the rest are going to have to make some choice.

    likewise, you can see a similar set of preferences that men can excercise by virtue of their own increasing market value:

    – settle for a slut and make do (perhaps by tolerating her past and present indiscretions)
    – find a girl with a sexual history, but who has a reasonably chance of remaining faithful to you
    – land a virtuous woman and turn her into your slut

    again, only the alpha males can fully resolve this tension. the rest must make do with less-than-optimal circumstances.

    Like


  121. Black Sheep–

    Oh and the answer to your examples presented as questions is yes in what I quoted above is: yes.

    As well women in hunter gather societies and not just agricultural ones were considered private property of men as well, though with rights. Wives are not slaves in virtually all societies.

    Like


  122. There is no evidence whatsoever that most hunter gather societies didn’t consider that wives belonged to their husbands as a kind of property, but with human rights while subordinate to her husband. That’s a human universal before Marxist 2nd wave feminism. That a few highly marginal low material level societies allow greater female promiscuity than was typical in more successful agricultural or herding peoples, proves nothing about hunter gather society matriarchy or a feminist free for all. In fact just about all herding peoples are fiercely patriarchal as is typical of more war like peoples.

    Like


  123. “They all talk like that when they stick it in,” she screamed.

    Like


  124. Thursday

    Jonathan:

    I don’t think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

    Agreed. It’s all leftist/Marxist happy talk.

    Like


  125. Chateau–

    In a society with a heavily skewed male-female ratio favoring men, “everybody banging everybody” wouldn’t elicit as much of a jealousy response if each man was spreading his seed with multiple women, increasing his chances to procreate.

    1) I don’t think anyone can produce any solid evidence that since Homo became sapiens that most humans living as hunter gatherers or with some slash and burn horticulture thrown in, have ever lived in such a state, or 2) that any really successful society compared to those around it ever did.

    Like


  126. @Doug1

    Don’t be an idiot. Nobody is claiming these are noble savages, just that open promiscuity is a pattern observed in our closest primate relatives, the evolution of our own genitals support the hypothesis that it is a pattern we followed for a considerable amount of time, and the fact that tribal cultures we have observed in the last century follow this pattern as well is even more of an indication. Open and permitted promiscuity fits with the highly egalitarian and cooperative nature of tribal societies which shared everything else. Again, this isn’t noble savagery. These patterns were just more adaptive to survival in that environment. That wouldn’t be the case today. Religious brainwashing is a powerful force.

    @Thursday

    I didn’t say sperm competition disproved external selection, just that the man a woman selects externally is not guaranteed to be compatible on a cellular level. As a mating strategy, promiscuity is one way to get around this fact and it is a much better adaptation for the prehistoric environment than life long monogamous pair bonding.

    Like


  127. Again:

    Jonathan: “we know it didn’t because mate sharing rituals have been observed far and wide in these same types of tribal societies.”

    I’m interested in this. Could you provide some evidence, links, etc

    The authors of that book are just trying to make a name for themselves. Everyone is tripping over themselves trying to disprove or discredit evolutionary psychology – the latest attempt is pretty piss poor, based on what I’ve seen so far.

    Like


  128. Jajajajaja. The lion doesn’t understand paternity either. But sure as shit he’s protective of his kitties.

    Like


  129. I am so glad I don’t have to really consider all that is discussed here in order to enjoy my partner and be a good wife. Simplicity please, this stuff just gives me a headache.

    Like


  130. on August 25, 2010 at 6:25 pm Dr. Wolf Holdings

    Thursday’s criticisms are devastating. There’s no reason to think the bonobo-like free for all is a stable equilibrium. The man who comes to have any inkling for possessiveness will ensure his genetic endowment continues in ways the womb of the unknown father can’t. It’s best as well, not to think of this as either/or but as behavior on the margin.

    Likewise–Why would a women risk having a beta’s child? What benefits does she receive from “shared” paternity that overcome this giant albatross?

    Vague gestures to a more harmonious community are not enough.

    Like


  131. “If women were treated merely as property, why wouldn’t most every guy have pimped his wife’s pussy out for more money?”

    I think we need a reader pole on how many men found this particular statement by AHE arousing. The answer will conclusively decide if cuckoldry is biological.

    (I have no clue what I’m saying, but thought it sounded half-way intelligent, therefore not bad for a woman.)

    Like


  132. Johnathan–

    and the fact that tribal cultures we have observed in the last century follow this pattern as well is even more of an indication. Open and permitted promiscuity fits with the highly egalitarian and cooperative nature of tribal societies which shared everything else.

    No tribal cultures we’ve studied don’t permit open and permitted female promiscuity with rare exceptions. There was a lot of lying about this in early Boasian anthropology though.

    Which tribal societies are you talking about? Do you even know?

    I don’t know of any society that has no marriage rules and men always have a big say. Maybe a man way down the status ladder might not much. That was true in agricultural societies too. A lot of peasant wives screwed around on their husbands if a local merchant etc. took an interest in her.

    Like


  133. on August 25, 2010 at 6:42 pm Professor Woland

    One advantage of female benobo promiscuity is that the males are never really quite sure if a chimp is theirs or not. This cuts down on infanticide where the alpha kills off his rivals children a la Richard III. With Benobos, it is the females that run the joint.

    Now a days we have DNA testing. This will alter the game almost as much as secure birth control did. My guess is that men who do not have children will begin to withdraw support from the society as they recognize that they have no real stake. Why take the pain if you don’t get the pleasure?

    Like


  134. Jonathan–

    Open and permitted promiscuity fits with the highly egalitarian and cooperative nature of tribal societies which shared everything else.

    How egalitarian HG bands are is also exaggerated. Men always lead them. Material possessions are few and though things like spears and bows and arrows are personal property, food is shared, as is knowledge of how to make weapons. Leading men have a lot more status than other men and first choice in women. Up and comers who think they’ll have to wait too long for a leadership role often attract some female and other followers and form their own split off band.

    Like


  135. how does one pronouce “aoefe”?

    like owf?

    or oaf?

    or aif?

    please help me.

    Like


  136. *pronounce*

    Like


  137. Good comments, Doug1 and j r.

    @Professor

    Now a days we have DNA testing. This will alter the game almost as much as secure birth control did.

    Not so sure about that. In order for it to have a significant impact it will either have to become mandatory (not likely) or routinely requested by men of their partners (also not likely).

    Like


  138. Jonathan:

    You need to read more widely.

    Like


  139. on August 25, 2010 at 7:12 pm Cannon's Canon

    eye color

    it’s not just for the birds!

    Like


  140. @Tim

    EeeFee or EeeFah not Oaf (although I have my moments)

    Like


  141. I think those who push polyamory are really trying to sell consensual cuckoldry to provider beta males.

    One way cuckoldry in it’s naked form is a pretty tough sell to all but the most submissive and sexually inadequate feeling beta males. With polyamory the advocates can confuse what really happens to beta males when luring them into it — that they’ll get a lot less male role sex after awhile, the more alphaish polyamory partner is the one that’s getting that — though maybe his wife will still let him orally please her on the regular. I.e. consensual cuckoldry. This process can make a beta who didn’t feel submissive but is trying to hang onto his wife or gf, increasing submissive and effectively sexually broken, I think.

    Some older feminists who aren’t hot enough or waited too long to get an alpha to be exclusive to them, and some older alphaish males who aren’t so hot at pickup, seem to be the main ones trying to sell polyamory.

    Like


  142. aoefe

    @Tim

    EeeFee or EeeFah not Oaf (although I have my moments)

    Interesting. I’ve always imagined it as AaaOohFee. I can see EeeFee though.

    Like


  143. Sure, pre-agricultural man had no idea about pregnancy’s cause, but his genes sure as hell did. Genes that “aren’t jealous enough” don’t get passed along. Good call chateau.

    Like


  144. aoefe

    actually more like AaaaUuufee.

    Like


  145. Women’s impetuous promiscuity is a function of their ovulatory cycle, in large part, where they seek alpha genes one week out of the month.

    Assuming this is true, then having an alpha type personality would be a highly favored trait. Why are most men Beta by nature then?

    Like


  146. Schmoe

    Sure, pre-agricultural man had no idea about pregnancy’s cause

    The only pre-contact peoples I know of for whom this is said to be true are some Australian Aborigines. Who don’t exactly pin the need to the right on IQ tests. Though such things are taboo topics now. I don’t believe this was true of the Torres Staits islanders though. They probably had some Indonesian contact in the millenia after crossing over to Australia when seas where much lower and land masses closer together.

    It’s really not that hard to figure out. Girls who are virgins never get pregnant even after they start menstruating. A quite reliable early sign of pregnancy is morning sickness. That can be readily linked to her having had sexual intercourse not too long previously. Morning sickness symptoms quite reliably lead to either clear swollen belly pregnancy and birth, or miscarriage.

    Now because sexual intercourse doesn’t always lead quickly to pregnancy in girls and women (though more often in girls, since they’re more fertile) there’s lots of room for spirit powers having a hand in pregnancy too.

    Like


  147. The provider beta is a product of a strong rule of law (surrogate alpha). In a Hobbesian state the alpha would be the true provider. In more primitive societies, the male provides meat and protection from other males and not much else. In such a state the surest path to success would be to take what you need from others and to intimidate other men into helping you in that task. Being the mate of a provider beta would not be of much use when an alpha could come along and take everything you have and likely the woman as well.

    Like


  148. It’s normally spelled Aoife… and is Irish.

    Are ya Oirish, love?

    OT: a girl I banged is super-jealous that I’m fucking her friend (but it’s more of a competitive thing with her).

    She is resorting to trying – in extremely transparent ways – to make me jealous, for example by sending me emails detailing how her ex-bf is heartbroken over her, by telling me about getting laid at the weekend, her blowjob techniques, guys who are trying to hook up with her, etc. She’s projecting; these are things that would make her jealous, so she figures they’d make me jealous too. Instead, I see her as immature.

    Girlies need to pay attention: implying that you get a lot of cock does not endear us to you or make us want you, and it doesn’t even hurt us – it just makes us want to ignore you and write you off as a dipshit.

    Like


  149. get a lot less male role sex after awhile, the more alphaish polyamory partner is the one that’s getting that — though maybe his wife will still let him orally please her on the regular. I.e. consensual cuckoldry. This process can make a beta who didn’t feel submissive but is trying to hang onto his wife or gf, increasing submissive and effectively sexually broken, I think.

    Yeah. There’s also quite a bit of bisexuality in the poly world.

    I knew a person once who was poly. She described it as circles of loyalty — so she had her “primary”, who was another woman, her “secondary” who was a man, and then beyond that there were merely “tertiaries”. Everyone knew about everyone else, and there was a hierarchy in the importance of the relationships as well, such that primary was, of course, getting most of the attention. In that situation, the guy who was the secondary was really a foil for the bi woman’s lesbian partner — someone to “drain off” her residual attraction to men. Interestingly, she shared with me that the secondaries and tertiaries don’t generally last very long, because most people can’t deal with poly more than a short period of time.

    I suppose in your example, if the beta whose getting to play the role of a cuckold is bisexual, he may not mind because the same guy who is topping the woman will probably also be topping him. But the number of guys who are like that is really, really tiny as a percentage of the male population, really.

    Like


  150. on August 25, 2010 at 8:15 pm Professor Woland

    @ novaseeker

    Don’t bet on it. Paternity fraud for men is the genetic equivalent of rape for women. It is a way of “genetically cutting in line”. It will never be acceptable to men the same way rape will never be acceptable to women. The laws have yet to catch up with the technology but it won’t be far behind. The days of “everything in the marriage is his and everything outside the marriage is hers” has been rendered moot.

    Like


  151. Polyamory–the ugly person’s Sexual Revolution

    Like


  152. Regarding ancient humans figuring out the relationship between sex and pregnancy . . .

    Since book author seems to be doing a lot of speculating, I’ll speculate that
    1. Humans were not particularly stupid tens of thousands of years ago. It only seems that way because huge leaps in knowledge were made once the shift to agricultural societies began (permitting people to focus on things other than their next meal). But this does not mean that hunter gatherers were not observant. In fact, we know that they are very observant – note the incredible ability of hunter gatherers to distinguish amongst the many species of plants and animals in their environment, and their knowledge of the benefits or dangers of these various species. People who can do this can figure out that sex is the cause of pregnancy. As Doug1 points out, it ain’t that hard.

    2. Even if humans are that dumb, their genes are not (echoing comments made by many already).

    Thursday makes a great point about sexual selection and the need for polyamory theorists to demonstrate that mechanisms existed to punish ‘cheaters’ and counteract the sexual selection that would otherwise take place.

    Bottom line is that Ryan speculates about how ancient man lived and thus evo-psych. But whose views fit better with today’s empirical evidence? CH, hands down. The reality is that the crumbling of western patriarchal society is revealing the dark truths of human nature, and we should expect to see more and more rubbish like Sex at Dawn that tries to offer alternatives to the dark truths. At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself – which theory better fits the evidence that you see all around you?

    Like


  153. Femdom porn, plus wlm flr relationships are growing exponential. First they begin as, white knight / manginas, then they fall further into these unnatural relationships. I think it has to do with lower t and sperm counts in men, and higher levels of hormones in women.

    Like


  154. Rights wingers R’s white knight and display chivalry in an overzealous fashion.

    By being so chivalrous towards woman, the R’s are doing exactly as the feminists demand.

    Like


  155. @Professor —

    How do you see that happening politically? Most women are very much against mandatory paternity tests because it casts every woman as a potential cuckoldress. I don’t see male legislators having the balls to pass mandatory paternity testing laws any time soon, really.

    In the meantime, that means guys need to ask for these tests. And those are just fabulous conversations, because you’re basically telling your pregnant wife that you don’t trust her. Yeah, that conversation goes well, lol.

    Like


  156. “The provider beta is a product of a strong rule of law (surrogate alpha). In a Hobbesian state the alpha would be the true provider. In more primitive societies, the male provides meat and protection from other males and not much else. In such a state the surest path to success would be to take what you need from others and to intimidate other men into helping you in that task. Being the mate of a provider beta would not be of much use when an alpha could come along and take everything you have and likely the woman as well.”

    See Slumdog Millionaire

    Like


  157. @ Doug “actually more like AaaaUuufee”

    I’m from Canada but I’m not AaaaNewfee. 😉

    Like


  158. dalrock

    Women’s impetuous promiscuity is a function of their ovulatory cycle, in large part, where they seek alpha genes one week out of the month.

    Assuming this is true, then having an alpha type personality would be a highly favored trait. Why are most men Beta by nature then?

    The A type model of personalities comes with many risks for the man. That model is famous for it’s risk taking features.

    And the B type model, while having its obvious flaws, also has many advantages over the A type, for securing a wife. Girls love to fuck the rogues, sure, but a lot of em won’t even go there, and a greater portion will only go there if the guy has no hint of family man vibes.

    The A type is a risk taker who fucks around and is the independent authority of his life. The B type is the family guy easily controlled by duty and social pressures and his wife. He gets to work on time and comes home on time and is responsible.

    So this is why women have a dual mating strategy. The A type make shitty dads, but great cads.

    Like


  159. Doug:

    I think those who push polyamory are really trying to sell consensual cuckoldry to provider beta males.

    Most likely.

    Like


  160. novaseeker

    In the meantime, that means guys need to ask for these tests. And those are just fabulous conversations, because you’re basically telling your pregnant wife that you don’t trust her. Yeah, that conversation goes well, lol.

    More than once that’s been said on this forum, and less than once has it been explained where this thought comes from. Is it outer space?

    WHY would you ask your wife for consent? Just swab her gums. There are many online companies offering paternity tests. Order a kit, and use a little subterfuge. Hire a fake mid-wife to check your wife out for a day and make some tests. I think hookers have nurse uniforms, don’t they?

    Like


  161. most swinging starts out as the man wanting a threesome and wanting it all focussed on HIM but as soon as Ms. Attention Whore discovers the thrill of having cocks thrown at her again it becomes allllll about her and the man likely gets shunted aside for a woman eventually

    sounds great

    Like


  162. Problem with Ryan’s book is that he designates some of our deepest and most primal drives as “social constructs”. No one knows exactly how we learned jealousy. But it exists in every human being.

    The glorification of Bonobos (a dead end species if ever there was one) and the apparent shilling for polyamory don’t exactly add to its appeal. Hell, Amazon are bundling it with two Polyamory-based books (one with the charming title of The Ethical Slut) in a special offer, for all you Poly folks out there.

    Like


  163. Holdings

    Likewise–Why would a women risk having a beta’s child? What benefits does she receive from “shared” paternity that overcome this giant albatross?

    The beta is the provider dutiful family man.

    The alpha is the traveling salesman.

    A mother wants a dutiful provider, and so does the kid.

    Like


  164. on August 25, 2010 at 9:33 pm David Collard

    A point I have tried to make in earlier discussion was that there is no need for humans to be consciously aware of their genetic motives to act upon them. Conscious understanding of the mechanics of paternity or fertility or whatever is not necessary for adaptive behaviours to be expressed (male jealousy, for example).

    Also, I raised the point of self-deception. It seems to me that CH Theory is really a nice example of self-deception in the human female. She tells herself she wants a nice guy but she juices up for the bad boy. This makes evolutionary sense, if she wants to bond to a safe “beta provider” but be impregnated by an alpha.

    I also commented earlier that my wife sometimes claims to find sex with me unappealing, but she still lubricates well. It is perfectly possible for a woman to say and believe one thing, while her body is deceiving her and sending another signal at her nether regions.

    Like


  165. The less popular and equally valid theory is that this is a biological mechanism evolved to increase the frequency of multiple mate impregnations by one or a few Alpha males living in a polygamous colony (i.e. a harem society not unlike other primates).

    Rollo, this does not explain why two females would want to get impregnated/give birth at the same time as one other? If all they want is the same alpha sperm, all they have to do is live in the same colony – not ovulate at the same time. Any reason for this?

    Like


  166. I think I occasionally watch gangbang porn for the same reason I might occasionally watch something like the russian soldier decapitation video– not because it appeals to me, but because it fascinates and horrifies me.

    Like


  167. namae nanka

    madonnas want to have sex, it’s their men who don’t want to have sex with them.

    Another vote for the primacy of sexual chemistry in an LTR. Those who choose sexual fidelity as the primacy of the relationship may find they are defending barren territory.

    Like


  168. Or is there another explanation why women scream duri

    there sure is…

    the tongue has hit the right spot.

    bravo for the person who can hold his own.

    Like


  169. Ryan’s hypotheses are risible and clearly ideologically motivated (i.e., leftist temper tantrums masquerading as science). CH’s rejoinders (haha, like that alliteration?) are trenchant and straight to the point for the most part. Though there are several others he could have used, his reference to Ashkenazim Jewish IQ as an example of how quickly (relatively speaking of course) evolution can produce distinctive traits (given sufficient selection pressure) shows that even granting Ryan’s dubious and entirely unsupported contention that sexual jealousy would only have come into being with the advent of agriculture, more than enough time has passed since said advent for sexual jealousy (and the inevitable resulting male coupling preference – sluts for the short term, chaste women for the long term) to have become a biological fact and not just some social artifact of an agricultural society. In any event, the issue of male vs. female polygamy has been settled – human males are naturally polygamous, human females are more naturally polygamous than female gorillas but much less naturally polygamous than female bonobos. Evidence for this statement lies entirely in male (not female) physiology – penis and testes size relative to body size (i.e., having females in the species who are less polygamous allows the males to have smaller reproductive organs relative to overall body size (the “gorilla model”) while having females in the species who are more polygamous calls for the opposite (the “bonobo model”)). Quite predictably, the average size of male reproductive organs relative to body size for homo sapiens lies in the middle of the primate spectrum. In any event, Ryan and the rest of the ideologically-motivated Game-haters are going to have to try a lot harder to discredit the plain facts of human biology: those of us with dicks are always going for the good girl as Mrs. Right and for the slut as Ms. Alright For Now.

    Like


  170. “Most women are very much against mandatory paternity tests because it casts every woman as a potential cuckoldress.”

    if men can be cast as potential rapists and taught from an early age, as boys, not to rape to the point where even objectification of female body is made a sin, surely women can be taught from an early age, when they have not yet bleeded for the first time that … oh wait..

    Like


  171. so to summarize: Sex at Dawn is a poorly written pseudoscientific unintelligent piece of shit.

    let us never speak of this again.

    Like


  172. on August 25, 2010 at 10:43 pm retired backpacker

    Your argument seems dogmatic in the face of someone who took time to write a book and do research on the very subject you speculate so heavily upon. Basically I second what the very first commenter said.

    Like


  173. i’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that Christopher Ryan is probably a fag, not that there s anything wrong with that unless of course u claim to understand the psychology of straight guys, and that the co-writer with the female name probably has a vagina.

    Like


  174. The authors live together.

    My guess: they are poly.

    Like


  175. “Your argument seems dogmatic in the face of someone who took time to write a book and do research on the very subject you speculate so heavily upon. Basically I second what the very first commenter said.”

    how do u know that someone who took the time to write the book also took the time to research it? the author clearly has no concept of the selfish gene. any fool can make a bunch of unresearched. i do all the time.

    but this work aint even passing the smell test. extraordinary claims demnd extraordinary evidence. what evidence does this work provide other than some guys get off to watching gang bang porn?

    and its attempt to make Darwin sound like a fool is an awfully foolish route.

    Like


  176. Mortality rates among males in hunter societies is very well documented. Skeletal and ethnographic evidence abounds.

    http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/aging_evolution/hill_2007_hiwi_mortality.html

    “First, conspecific violence was a prominent part of the demographic profile, accounting for many deaths in all age and sex categories. Most of the adult killings were due to either competition over women, reprisals by jealous husbands (on both their wives and their wives’ lovers), or reprisals for past killings. ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talheim_Death_Pit

    “Death by violence is seen in burials from as far back as 34,000 to 24,000 years ago in central and western Europe. The massacre at Talheim supports this idea by giving evidence of habitual warfare between Linearbandkeramik settlements.”

    http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/breaking-hunter-gatherer-societies-were-incredibly-violent/

    “In ancient graves excavated previously, Bowles found that up to 46 per cent of the skeletons from 15 different locations around the world showed signs of a violent death. More recently, war inflicted 30 per cent of deaths among the Ache, a hunter-gatherer population from Eastern Paraguay, 17 per cent among the Hiwi, who live in Venezuela and Colombia, while just 4 per cent among the Anbara in northern Australia.On average, warfare caused 14 per cent of the total deaths in ancient and more recent hunter-gatherers populations.?

    Like


  177. chic noirbuttox,

    This article explains why each time you have detoxed my buttox, it has been at dusk (usually 9 PM).

    The lavender and lilac essence was good last time. For doing a good job, I will reduce the fee you usually pay for the privilege to detox my buttox from $5000 to $3000. You will also get to perform additional ceremonial duties.

    Therefore, next time, for a price of just $3000, you willl…

    ….first botox
    ….then retox
    ….then RRRRRectox
    ….then Detox
    ………my Buttox

    Like


  178. yup the 1st commenter did take away the prize. two conjectures on finding a naked man jumping out of the window, the milkman boinked your wife(and one of your kids isn’t your own) or he was just a peeping tom, who liked to peep into other’s kitchens completely naked(your wife’s version, the plus point being that she was in the kitchen like a dutiful wife).
    yup too many conjectures, too many rabbits out of the hat. too many asscocking sessions.

    Like


  179. AHE:

    so to summarize: Sex at Dawn is a poorly written pseudoscientific unintelligent piece of shit.

    let us never speak of this again.

    You underestimate.

    One of the trump cards we have is the support of biological, genetic, evo-psych science. Our detractors up until this point have been mostly utopian idealists who have a need to believe in the maleability of human nature in order to obscure the unforgiving nature of the sexual marketplace and female hypergamy.

    This book purports to use the very same science to paradigm shift our clear-eyed observation of human nature.

    I suspect this book will soon be masturbated to by the MQ’s of the world.

    Like


  180. on August 25, 2010 at 11:43 pm David Collard

    I see that the tittle-tattle about Napoleon Chagnon is being repeated here. I have seen the man defend himself on the Evol Psych discussion list, but he can’t be everywhere. The attack on him by Tierney was highly dubious. Here is Wikipedia on the unreliable Tierney:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Tierney_(journalist)

    It had all the hallmarks of a PC hitjob on a fine anthropologist.

    Like


  181. @Polemicist

    “For the record, Karl Marx did not advocate eliminating private property. He advocated eliminating the advantage obtained via control of the means of production. A big part of this was *land*, i.e. agriculture.”

    BINGO, thank you.

    Like


  182. on August 26, 2010 at 12:20 am smelly monkey

    this is one of your psts where you make very unconvincing arguments. simply because you dont really know what you are talking about. evidence please . strong solid evidence. it doesnt become yrue just because you are puting it in an assertive manner.

    Like


  183. Dont Hamarydaras baboons guard their harems? http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Baboon

    ……and Savannah baboons are much more promiscious?

    Some of the greater apes seem to be free-love and some seem to be more family oriented…..

    We have transplanted baboon livers into humans, so they are quite like us.

    Jealousy would diminish greatly if there were no child support and there was no alimony. If a male caught his wife cheating, he could simply divorce her and find another female with no damage done to his “Survival Value”, but under the present system his finances are gutted and he becomes a psuedo-slave-to-the-state on pain of incarceration if he doesn’t pony up an inordinate portion of his income every month once cuckolded. His Survival Value is therefore greatly damaged, so he has profound reasons to be jealous.
    If lefties really wanted “free-love”, then they could have it (Gaia-titty-fucking-dammit) at any time. End Child Support and Alimony and division of assets, and you’d be horrified by how little some men would care if they caught their wives cheating. “Make a divorce as easy as buying a gallon of milk”, (and joint custody), and plenty of these men would be happy as all fuck if they caught the old shrew straying……..

    ………of course with those laws plenty of men would be cheating out the wazoo themselves, but I digress. Women dont want equality, and neither do liberals. Average males are practically state-wage-tax-base-serfs now, just the way statists like it.

    Like


  184. @AHE

    “and judging from the “hentai” category, our ancestors wanted to have sex with japanese cartoon characters also.”

    The entire point of modern civilization is being able to see Japanese cartoon characters have sex.

    Like


  185. Bonobos are the least numerous of all primates. They are the losers of the ape family. Chimps are more aggressive than bonobos. Groups of chimps will invade bonobos territory and the bonobos will flee. The bonobos are pushed into less desirable habitats with less abundant food. Therefore, there aren’t very many bonobos. The bonobos are headed for extinction. They are an evolutionary dead end, a genetic experiment that failed.

    That’s why liberals like them. Liberals are losers who can’t compete, so they concoct ridiculous theories about equality in a desperate effort to save their own asses.

    Like


  186. “i’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that Christopher Ryan is probably a fag, not that there’s anything wrong with that…”

    let me correct myself. his Psychology Today bio says he lives with his his female co-author, implying there is a sexual relationship.

    i’ll try my best not to infer anything further, because it makes for a horrible visual.

    but jesus fuck man: do you really think you — or anyone else– can write something objective about sexual psychology WITH the person you are fucking?

    Like


  187. “this is one of your psts where you make very unconvincing arguments. simply because you dont really know what you are talking about. evidence please . strong solid evidence. it doesnt become yrue just because you are puting it in an assertive manner.”

    the book is the one asserting the unconventional claims. the burden of evidence is on the unconventional.

    Like


  188. @AHE

    “Paul,

    This is taken directly from an excerpt from the Sex at Dawn site:

    “Why do so many heterosexual men get off on pornography featuring groups of guys having sex with just one woman?””

    He’s talking about bukakeh (sp?) sites, that shit’s for gay guys, they’re not interested in the girl, they’re interested in watching the other guys.

    Like


  189. @GasButtox,

    Enjoy reading your posts. You’ve got competition, though. GBFM is formidable.

    Perhaps one day you will…wait for it…

    …hold it…

    …holding…

    …detox his
    ..buttox.

    Like


  190. Tim, looks more like GBFM reproduced through parthenogenesis.

    Like


  191. @Johnathan,

    I went out and read your book. Not only does what you write not jibe with everything I’ve read in human evolution, archaeology and anthropology (post-Mead post-Left), but especially archaeology (the bones-and-stones side of the social science), just don’t seem to be on the same page as what you write about.

    One

    – Private property is connected to specific economic activities. A society without farming will not value farmland. However, all predatory and opportunistic mammals are highly territorial, often doubly so for access to females. Kin-selection is the rule. Chimps are known to engage in warfare and territorial disputes; stray males can have a very hard time of it.

    You never address this: you only address private property as it connects to land. This is ultimately completely irrelevant to the argument. It’s secondary. All hunting societies tightly control what groups have access to what hunting environment. It’s their property.

    They may share in abundance – but in times of shortage, watch the knives (clubs) come out.

    Property can take many forms. It also doesn’t preserve in the archaeological record.

    In this case, given human universals we’re conscious of, and arguing from self-evident contemporary human psychology,…

    “Absence of evidence” is not “evidence of absence”.

    Your argument is facile and disingenuous.

    Two

    Similarity to or difference from chimps or bonobos is irrelevant. We’re as far displaced from their lineages in time as makes no appreciable difference. There’s *so much* time intervening, so many evolutionary challenges, so many separate environments that shaped us that didn’t shape them –

    In point of fact, we behave much more like greedy, violent chimps than we do like peaceful, communalist bonobos. I can make this point, but it’s as irrelevant as your comparison with bonbos.

    Our intermediaries and ancestors are gone. We can model our behavior using animal examples, but your examples defy the evidence of all of history.

    Given that there’s no solid evidence for the behaviors you need to find in prehistoric periods, especially in early Homo, everything you write is conjecture.

    Our penis architecture is interesting; obviously there’s some mate competition going on. But this can as easily result from Pair-Bonding with Occasional Opportunistic Cheating.

    Nowhere in your book do you make the case that penis architecture and female response require promiscuity rather than *occasional* promiscuity – Hypergamy, in effect.

    Both could produce our anatomy over time. It’s a glaring omission on your part.

    Three

    – The truth of it is that neither chimps nor bonobos make good models for our mating behavior. You have cherry-picked elements and ignored others.

    – Elements you have ignored:

    – Humans across cultural barriers engage in private sex. Sexual shame is a component in almost every culture on the planet. This is the behavior of a social mammal which wants to hide its sexual behavior for social reasons. This is not the behavior of an openly polyamorous mammal.

    – The only societies that practiced open copulation lived either in extreme abundance (some pacific islands, but in this Mead was often fabricating stories; the Polynesians were often a fantastically violent and patriarchal group) or under privation: in winter, the Iroquoians had to practice relatively unconcealed sex, because their living conditions precluded privacy of any duration; the Inuit were the same.

    – Even hunting groups had “marriage huts” in which couples engages in sex. Exclusively.

    And this:

    – Early gatherer-hunters lived in wholly different conditions. They lived in conditions of abundance and plenty.

    All historical G-H societies we’re familiar with today, with the exception of Australian aborigines before contact, live on marginal lands. The best environments were appropriated by agriculturalists. True Time of Plenty Gatherer-Hunter societies exist nowhere in the historical record, except for a few passing references to skin-clad tribes in early bronze-age Mesopotamia who “ate not of the fruit of the soil” and who, even by 2700 BC, were largely memories and extremely marginal.

    Australian Aborigines practice elaborate marriage and pair-bonding rituals. They hardly copulate freely and in the open. That said, there’s great variety between tribes, as well. Many tribes historically had contempt for others with different practices.

    Four
    Variability and Instability

    – The truth you refuse to acknowledge in your book is that humans are highly complex and hugely opportunistic and that out mating patterns do *not* appear to be stable. Your observations are salient only in that it represents one possible stream in our genetically-programmed sexual behavior. In fact, the hard-wired jealousy response mitigates against mass polyamory in most circumstances; it can only apparently be viable under extremely specific conditions.

    Form what I’ve observed, those conditions are overwhelming abundance, lack of competitive motivations, and generalize apathy.

    Four and a Bit
    Conditions for Polyamory

    A group of 30-40-50 something well-to-do white people otherwise settled in life may experience these conditions. That said, polyamory is still not popular as a lifestyle – anywhere. Anywhen.

    Among the elite of Rome? The French court? Those situations embodied the conditions outlined above. And the situation even there wasn’t stable, with jealousies, fratricide, murder, and bitter recriminations all too common.

    Indeed, hypergamy and alpha-opportunism more accurately reflected most of the members of this class.

    Obviously, depending on differing circumstances, we have instincts programed to allow us to adapt to a variety of demands.

    Five

    However: there are a few universals.

    – Jealousy: it’s fierce and vicious. It appears in all literatures around the world, all times recorded, and in every myth. Sexual jealousy is undeniably one of the prime motivators for all people in social settings. This is never more true than for sexual contact between individuals.

    Proof in Behavior

    Cuckoldry/cheating is interesting in that it clearly *plays* on the anxiety produced by jealousy for sexual arousal. The response of a few males to these situations shows more clearly than anything else that polyamory is not a natural state for us – that the anxiety that jealousy produces, and the excitement, can move some men to kill and others to become sexually aroused.

    Given the strong link between dominance behavior – mating – and violence, this activating power of jealousy is unsurprising. It’s filtered through different men.

    Most men everywhere dislike being cuckolded and become angry. This is also cross-cultural. Some cultures brutally punish females for “cheating” the male out of his breeding opportunities (sex). Not just agricultural ones, either.

    Five and a Fraction

    – Status: The unending quest for social status and rank is a hallmark of the human condition. Societies can reduce the pressure for this contest, but only by forcibly denying human nature. Wilson had it right abut communism: Great idea, wrong species. I would amend this by observing the behavior of people when they’re given things they don’t need to work for.
    “Great Idea. Absolutely wrong idea.:

    Humans are motivated to excel. But this is largely a function of power and status. Females do this as much as males, though with subtle but important differences. I can go on about them, but a casual review of any group of humans in any situation at any time will elucidate this as clearly as I ever could.

    Social status – temporary, resource, permanent, power, in families, among children (especially) – is everything to human groups. Absolutely everything. Denying this is a grotesque perversion of what it is to be human. It’s why communalist fantasies *always* fail. There’s never been a successful version.

    Given our basic psychology, aside from sex, I find it unlikely to the point of requiring overwhelming proof that this would not also be the case with sex (which it obviously is) and that this doesn’t extend very far back in time, given that it’s universal among all human groups ever encountered, written about or recorded at any time.

    Even in palaeolithic and neolithic (non-agricultural) burials, there’s clear, overwhelming indications of status. One of the earliest indications of Homo Sapiens remains are status-distinguished burials.

    People who are obsessed with social status will not be free-mating individuals.

    Nowhere is the competition for resources and social status more fierce than in the sexual marketplace. All other aspects of life – food, rest, shelter – take second place to breeding, in the end.

    Six

    I’ve read your book. Violence among early Europeans groups was endemic. Intra-group and inter-group mass violence were normal. Archaeologists have evidence on the bones themselves of early violence. It appears to have been a near-constant state; all groups were always on the very edge of violence, in the absence of a higher authority to enforce agreements or peace. Resorting to violence was often the only solution.

    There are few, if any, historical examples of societies that match the patterns you discuss.

    The Micmac of eastern North America were the Gatherer-Hunters of their region; the Iroquoians their blood-enemies and mobile agriculturalists (only opportunistic hunters).

    The Micmac were fiercely territorial; their mythology is laced with heroic accounts of profound violence as typical responses to female infidelity, resource theft and male-male interactions. They were renowned for being prudes and not mating in public, and for viewing women and their sexuality as possessions.

    The imperialistic and highly successful (“civilized”) Iroquoians were politically complex, diverse, and outrageously violent to outsiders, and malcontents among their own groups (though less so than Europeans).

    Their couples practiced sex in barely concealed spaces within longhouses, out of necessity. They practiced forms of prostitution and free-sex, but only among *some* ladies and men. These were of a different – and often lower – class. Captives were treated differently: The females were clearly possessions. The males were also possessions, and the “owner” often allowed them to live, though there was a lot of ritualized killing, as warrior societies are wont to do.

    The “civilized”, semi-sedentary Iroquoians were more open about sexuality than the Micmac, who were classic Gatherer-Hunters on the edge of the continent.

    Read Garcilasco de la Inca’s account of De Soto’s march (butchery) up the American mid-west and south-east. The societies in the Ohio Valley and further south were even more civilized – and even more open about sex.

    But before you come to any conclusions, note that the women who were being given were being given as prizes; that there was clear class-behavior when it came to sex (some were promiscuous, but this had very real social consequences). So again, what appears like sexual openness and sharing is nothing but behavior that depended on class, status and perceived value.

    Endnote

    There’s as much evidence against your hypotheses as there is for it. Your thoughts on violence and our peaceable ancestry don’t hold up for a moment against the evidence from bones and stones (many early weapons have been assumed to be useless for hunting – but very, very useful for mass conflicts or private violence).

    The profound ability for humans to engage in violence and the clear universality of this behavior suggests that your motivations in desperately conjuring weak arguments has more to do with ideological posturing than productively seeking the bald facts of our ancestry.

    The shape of the penis is interesting, and the shape and size of our genitalia. But this could have been due to other factors and other evolutionary pressures.

    It’s possible that there are rival mate selection and mating pattern strategies even within a given individual; also between self-selected groups. Disambiguation in peer-selection will also occur, where like seeks out like, and then latent social instincts might or might not be exaggerated. There could also be general reinforcement.

    It’s entirely possible that we had a brief period of promiscuity, and this is certainly a good idea for the alpha females and males in our society (who engage in this behavior anyway), but how then do you account for the plethora of other behaviors we engage in – instinctively – that would doom such a social mechanism?

    All of these other traits would have been reinforced by 10-12K years of agriculture and its selective pressures. There are enough generations in there, with such profound sexual selection requirements (Agriculture) that the game could be very different now.

    Your argument was relatively weak. Expect a firestorm of informed resistance from the field. There’s too much ideological wishful thinking.

    Test It

    If you want to really test your idea, and see if the variation in the gene pool exists for your hypothesized mating strategy, you could adopt a eugenics program. By careful selection, create polyamorous groups through breeding out traits you don’t like. But I’m going to suggest that this is going to be a helluva lot of work. That these individuals find each other is remarkable enough.

    And, in any case, you’re going to get a regression to the mean in the next generation. You’d have to keep up a negative selective pressure for traits you dislike (jealousy, competitiveness, status-seeking, etc.) for quite a few generations. You’d have to be a seriously Dr. Evil to be able to do it. And even then, I doubt it would be as successful as your

    Alternatively, seek out natural test subject groups that might already exist and track them for a few generations. See if the behavior stabilizes.

    My bet is that it won’t.

    What you describe is way too latent, way to buried, way to deep, and way to overshadowed by other mating priorities among our ancestors.

    Like


  192. I was just out with a girl who texted me to hang out for the first time and she was all over me and I easily could have gone home with her but I didn’t because I don’t want to see the expression on her face when I leave her afterwards like my last girlfriend. I want a girl who I bed with the intention of hooking her forever.

    Like


  193. on August 26, 2010 at 2:02 am Gunslingergregi

    ”””’on August 26, 2010 at 12:32 am old guy
    @AHE

    “and judging from the “hentai” category, our ancestors wanted to have sex with japanese cartoon characters also.”

    The entire point of modern civilization is being able to see Japanese cartoon characters have sex.

    ””””

    I thought it was to watch “fist of the north star”
    Now that is game dude kills you to get your girl you get resurrected be one of two strongest dudes on planet after killing dude and finally get girl back. She never falls in love with dude who killed you though.

    Like


  194. on August 26, 2010 at 2:04 am Cannon's Canon

    that this bouffon du jour was even mentioned here disheartens me

    so much faggotry in the world today: ny caving to no fault divorce, gay marriage inevitability, dudes getting dildo-pegged by their wives, the polyamory clique, feminism in general…

    i can draw inspiration from a sinusoidal pendulum-type cycle (but i’m not sure that i believe it and am therefore uncomfortable)

    best case for the alpha-interloper-loving faggots out there who preach this type of shit… say that your blank-slate reductionism traces our behavior back to some monkey caste… well shit, let’s all have a big monkey party since we haven’t EVOLVED at all… yeah, no better than before, just carve out some gills and throw yourself back into the sea, maybe jihad “the patriarchy” while you’re at it to maximize utility

    i read a great book last year called “the wanting seed”, written in about 1961 about the dystopian limits of faggotry in society… it’s a quick read, i recommend it for all – you’ll finish it in a few days easy…. also features instances of “gender biodiversity”

    Like


  195. why did man create civilization? most were better off in the hunter gatherer world. only the elite were better off with agrculture.

    i’m pretty sure the pussy did it.

    the male bonobos might consider creating a world of art and science and trade and politics and fiat currencies and all that. but they probably look at all the ugly whores in their species and think “fuck it. what’s the point?”

    Like


  196. on August 26, 2010 at 2:21 am Cannon's Canon

    AHE,

    your perfidy precedes you

    Like


  197. Gunslinger,

    just curious, what do you do over there in Indo, I mean, for work? I don’t mean to be nosy, so if you don’t want to reply, no worries.

    also, its like your writing has some kind of accent. are you a white guy? black? you have a tricky online speech, can’t make it out.

    Like


  198. @Cannon,
    “your perfidy precedes you”

    and i will remain loyal to it.

    Like


  199. on August 26, 2010 at 2:38 am Cannon's Canon

    and i will envy that loyalty and suggest it to my peers

    it’s a terrific model

    Like


  200. on August 26, 2010 at 2:47 am Gunslingergregi

    ”””””” just carve out some gills and throw yourself back into the sea, maybe jihad “the patriarchy” while you’re at it to maximize utility
    ”””””’
    oh shit lol

    ””””Tim
    Gunslinger,

    just curious, what do you do over there in Indo, I mean, for work?
    ”””’

    I evolved to the point where the woman in my life is more than equal to me she does it all but I am the boss and nonmonogomous and she is monogomous. My only actual work is to lay the dick to her and keep her satisfied that way. She is happy then to do everything else. I took feminism to its conclusion lol

    I am an honorary black guy but reading up on irish I am realizing and after thinking about my grandfather realizing I actually just have irish blood he he he

    Like


  201. @Cannon

    the world is good for something. destroying.

    Like


  202. on August 26, 2010 at 2:58 am Gunslingergregi

    ””””’on August 26, 2010 at 2:38 am Cannon’s Canon
    and i will envy that loyalty and suggest it to my peers

    it’s a terrific model
    ”””””””

    It can be when used on others but on yourself it can be fucked because you don’t actually know what you are capable of doing until you do it he he he

    Like


  203. on August 26, 2010 at 3:01 am Gunslingergregi

    Cannon you should go officer sf and get the license to kill and shit. Think of how that could help your future endeavers.

    Like


  204. Jonathon — The *Gay* author of Sex at Dusk ignores considerable archaeological evidence showing continual slaughter pre-agricultural, the evidence of the pre-agricultural Amerinds, the stone age New Guinea tribes, and the constant evolutionary pressure to find new and better weapons. Men kill for better hunting grounds (which gives better access to food — imagine yourself on the plains of North Dakota circa 1200 AD — thats survival), status/power within their hiearchy, WOMEN (always in short supply, kill the neighboring tribe and take their women), and already gathered food (easier to kill others than get it yourself). Stone Age pre-agricultural peoples are LITERALLY on the edge of starvation because they literally have to spend ALL DAY getting something to eat. They quickly exhaust food in a area and must move constantly. The evidence from pre-history (burials, corpses, DNA) and near contemporaneous stone age peoples suggest mating patters of relatively “flat” hierarchy, mildly polygamous, due to RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS. Blown away by the agricultural age and explosion in population.

    Modern humans are most deeply affected by the population explosion and selection pressures of the agricultural age, which is deeply hierarchical and polygamous.

    This guy’s agenda is proof positive how gay men are the enemy of the average joe (Canon’s Canon got that right for sure). an Alpha based society gets gay men and women hot and bothered, but it also ends up looking like Mongolia or Liberia. Neither nice places to live. Humans depend on “deep-wide” cooperation of beta males to unlock resource constraints. That’s the definition of human, and why we use so many tools, all the time, constantly changing/improving them.

    Australopitheticus wasn’t a bonobo. HE hunted and killed things to EAT MEAT. Cooked it over fire without needing a huge gut or teeth. Which supported a BIGGER BRAIN. They were the top predator, cooperating to kill things with spears.

    Like


  205. on August 26, 2010 at 3:12 am David Collard

    Why does my earlier comment get stuck in moderation, but not my later one?

    On mating strategies, alpha and beta, there is no necessary “best” strategy. It can be frequency dependant, that is when there are a lot of alphas around, being a beta could be best, and vice versa. In many animals, there are different genetically determined mating strategies. Alphas, Betas and others (“sneaky fucker” strategists) may all work in some circumstances.

    Like


  206. on August 26, 2010 at 3:14 am Gunslingergregi

    Like just now she was hand feeding me in bed after cooking the food and then backed up a little to look at my dick.

    Yea get treated like a piece of meat sometimes but fuck it.

    Dam female opression. he he he

    Like


  207. Novaseeker — My guess is that DNA testing will be done on the sly, because it will be cheap and easy and guys will WANT TO KNOW. For sure. There will be a market for it, legal or not.

    My guess for the guys cuckolded? Go ghost. Take everything, dump everything (easier in the “new normal” of high unemployment and the Craigs List Economy) and move. Fake name, new city, same type of junk job. Zero commitment.

    Like


  208. on August 26, 2010 at 3:19 am Gunslingergregi

    And before that she made me put my leg on her lap and sat between my legs while I kicked back on some pillows chilling out. It really is hard to be a womans sexual toy. Now she sniffing my fucking armpit while I type. It is crazy to put up with this shit he he he

    Like


  209. on August 26, 2010 at 3:22 am Gunslingergregi

    Oh great now she bites a frech fry in half and gives me half and kisses my stomach like three times.

    4 times.

    Like


  210. on August 26, 2010 at 3:24 am Gunslingergregi

    up to 8 times lol

    Like


  211. on August 26, 2010 at 3:36 am Gunslingergregi

    Like oh my gaaawwwdddd

    I think she might want to have sex.

    Oh my gaaawwwdddd.

    I just woke her up last night tearing off the shorts and panties and she thanked me profusley and now this.

    Oh my gawwwdddd

    Like


  212. to me, it’s obvious that at some time we developed the instinct of paternity and jealousy. Of course for a long time human beings must have not given a shit, and those ancient not giving a shit instincts are still somewhat present in us and cohesisting, and they tend to get predominant in period of dissolution of civilization

    Like


  213. on August 26, 2010 at 4:28 am I'd better not say....

    AHE,

    You make a pretty good point about feminine beauty galvanizing males into great deeds. Notice that its the males in countries (apes in the cunt-trees) with the prettiest females who seem to be the most advanced? Perhaps the prettier lassies being around act as a muse to the males in a “lets make the world better for our cumfort” kinda way.

    If women typically looked like this um……unedifying aboriginal female….

    …………….I dont think many men would lead lives of burgeoning activity and wealth creation.

    Like


  214. also I think conjecture is essential to science. It starts with conjecture, and if it makes sense, we start looking for evidence.

    Or else, how the fuck are you going to prove something, if you don’t know what the fuck you are trying to prove?

    Like


  215. on August 26, 2010 at 5:07 am David Collard

    Trivers’ theory of self-deception:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception#Trivers.27_theory_of_self-deception

    is worth a look in all these discussions.

    I have read suggestions that woman’s hidden ovulation may even be aimed at deceiving the woman herself as to her true fertility status.

    It is not hard to imagine that a woman may say – and believe herself – that she wants a certain kind of man (maybe a “nice guy”) and bond quite well to him, convincing him that she is his; while her body (sexual responses, vaginal lubrication, and so on) actually responds more to an alpha male.

    This would be consistent with a woman preferring a “beta” as a partner/provider but an alpha as a source of semen.

    It is also interesting, and consistent with this theory, that women prefer more masculine looking men when they are ovulating:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112074436.htm

    and women who are ovulating dress “sluttier”:

    http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=863662

    Like


  216. Steve, usually, you observe first and seeing some obvious trends/data sets, then you form a hypothesis and then you go about proving it. Pulling a hypothesis out of yer ass on a whim is not the best way to proceed.

    Well, unless you see a great grant potential that can be stretched ad infinitum, because you figger that you are unlike to find unequivocal proof during your lifetime. That kind of science is more prevalent these days. So you may have a point, though I wonder whether “science” is a good label.

    Like


  217. @I’d better not say….

    You must mean Eastern Europe. The concentration of gorgeous chicks there these days is astounding. They also have in their genetic memory the Islamic raids and have antibodies so as opposed to Western Europe, Islamization is less likely as they did not have the gender roles confusion during last decades (a thing designed in the ideological subversion branch of KGB, it was not allowed to propagate in the former commie countries as it was strictly designed as infection for western countries, I could probably dig up some articles from 70s where the feminism was described as a result of the decadence of western bourgeoisie).

    Like


  218. Of course the obvious reason why there would be sperm competition in males is not to do with some nebulous promiscuous eden but because it would increase the chance of paternity in the cases of gang rape, which would have been a feature of tribal life.

    A dual strategy where a man keeps women in his tribe as exclusive his and competes with other men for women from OTHER tribes (which are more public domain as it were) would explain both tendencies.

    Like


  219. Jonathan writes:
    «The evidence that we didn’t have private property for 95% of human history is that humans didn’t settle and have patterns of land ownership which were passed down along paternal lines until about 10-12k years ago. A conservative estimate at how long our species has been around, 200k years… check my math.»

    First, just because the first animal that we would portrait as the first modern human didn’t appear until 200k years ago (according to your generous estimate) doesn’t mean we don’t have a much richer evolutionary story on our back. Spiders protect their webs from other spiders that would take them. Birds protect their nests. Lions protect their cubs and harem. Private property exists in all kinds of other animals.

    Second, just because early humans didn’t see land as property, since it was so abundant, doesn’t mean they didn’t have property. Didn’t they make tools? had kids? women?
    Also, it’s unlikely that land became property with the advent of agriculture. If land was not scarce as you say, then they still wouldn’t see it as property until farming supported ever larger numbers of humans, and a mechanism to avoid conflict for the fight of the most fertile lands ensued. In fact, many primitive tribes today abandon their farms at the end of the harvesting and move to the fertile land of the forest, which they burn down. They still don’t see land as property (unless they have just planted crops there), yet they have agriculture. (There is a name to this kind of agriculture that I can’t remember.)

    Thirdly, didn’t those early humans migrate cyclically, just like many animals do today? “It’s cold, let’s go south. It’s hot, let’s go north.” I bet if when they came back to their old settlement, if they saw some other tribe installed there, eating their game, they wouldn’t be pleased — probably they did see land as property.
    Even kids see their chairs in the school as their property. At the start of the year, each kids picks up a chair to sit. Unless negotiated, they will be royally pissed off if some kids sits in their chair the next day. Sounds like private property is biological, or were they programmed by society already. What about toddlers that don’t let anyone else touch their toys without asking very nicely.

    Like


  220. @Lucius

    You make it sound as if the gang rape and raid for pussy were a daily occurrences. Likely not.

    Within a tribe, there were likely some sanctions instituted that kept the cases of gang rape to a minimum. Despoilment of women was not taken lightly and the perps usually were punished in some way. Likely depended on the status of the victim’s family and the ability to enforce sanction, which would have ranged from banishment, through castration, to termination.

    Raids were usually a desperate measure to replenish the “stock” after natural disasters, epidemics and other similar events. Also, the lifespan was shorter for women–childbirth death was fairly common. The risk was that the tribe from which the women were kidnapped would exact a revenge by reciprocating.

    There are some aspects that usually don’t get mentioned and may have some influence on selection.

    Approximately 70kya a serious genetic bottleneck happened–the cause is uncertain. It is estimated that the whole of mankind may have comprised of mere 2000 individuals. That probably set some patterns of reproduction behavior, for the sake of saving the species from extinction. The plunger penis shape may have been simply a chance selection because the survivors simply had that specific feature.

    This bottleneck seems to be reflected in some patterns that were preserved within Australian Aboriginal tribes that split off shortly after–matrilineal organization, with some specific restrictions who can mate with whom. It seems they has some knowledge about propagation of recessive and undesirable traits through 1st cousin mating, so the tribal elders kept a tab on mating matches. A serial monogamy was instituted as a procreation policy to diversify the gene pool, and due to harsh conditions of life in Australian desert, this was seen as the best solution to prevent extinction.

    It is likely that this reflects the pattern of mating after the bottleneck, though in time, later split offs discarded the pattern when there was not an apparent need for it.

    There were two other bottlenecks. One approximately 25kya, not as severe, and the cause is uncertain. It may be that the trend for a larger cranium capacity (1650 ccm as opposed to today’s 1450 ccm average) may have been halted at the time as it probably resulted in a childbirth problems.

    Another occurred at about 12kya, and the is the time when the larger cranium people cased to exist as a distinct groups/tribes–a larger cranium than 1450 ccm today is an anomaly.

    Like


  221. Let’s Not Get to Know Each Other Better
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/fashion/08love.html

    Like


  222. … small addendum to my post.

    Early humans must have known caves for which to go when the weather became sour. While moving around, it’s unlikely all the sudden they forgot about those places. Very likely, they would gravitate around those points so they would have some place to go if it started to rain. Would they be pleased if they saw some other humans there?

    Also, didn’t they build some kind of primitive houses as refuges. Even if those were destroyed when they came back, certainly it would have been easier to rebuild them using the wood from them instead of cutting new one. Very likely they returned to those points.

    Of course, these are all conjectures, but so are yours about private property. Fact is, every animal sees itself as owning one thing or another. And even us, from an early age, see ourselves as owners of our toys, our household environment (toddlers get very upset if you change their routine), etc. Doesn’t sound like a social construction because of agriculture, though of course what we see as property varies, and how protective we are of it, changes when its value changes (as supply and demand for that resource changes).

    Like


  223. BTW, Aussie Aborigines have some odd characteristics. The kids have blonde straight hair, but after puberty their hair changes to kinky black.

    Culturally, also some oddities. They practiced blood transfusion (a special type of grass that they used as a straw, with antibacterial properties) and they rarely made a mistake of mixing incorrect blood groups. It seems that the mating roster was designed to also address this issue and the blood group information was either an inherent feature or an additional information contained in the mating schedule.

    They also used certain plants as an anticonception medicine.

    A splinter group left Australia about 50kya, before invention of spear thrower and boomerang. They landed somewhere on a Chilean coast and slowly spread from south to NA central plains, but they never reached large population distribution.

    When the Amerindians crossed the Bering bridge, and met the indigenous people, they hunted them down mercilessly, rolling them back in the span of 2 millennia to the southern portion of South America. The hunt went on for millennia, until about 1500 CE, there was a tiny remnant left in Tierra del Fuego. These people had some serious adaptations for the harsh condition in the region. they were able to survive naked at very low temperatures by “vibrating” during sleep, thus generating enough heat to prevent hypothermia. The last 2 female representatives, which were not purebreds but mixed with Amerindian stock, died at the beginning of 20th century.

    Kinda puts the claims of Amerindians about their “indigenous” status in a perspective. David Yeagley (a Comanche) would probably say that Amerindians were better warriors. He actually says that about “white” people vis-a-vis American “Natives”.

    Like


  224. Regarding ancient humans figuring out the relationship between sex and pregnancy . . . Ryan is being ridiculous. As Doug1 points out, it ain’t that hard to make the connection. Just because ancient humans didn’t have specializations or recorded history prior to the shift to agriculture doesn’t mean they were idiots.

    Bottom line is that the crumbling of western patriarchal society is revealing the dark truths of human nature, and we should expect to see more and more rubbish like Sex at Dawn that tries to offer more pleasant alternatives. At the end of the day, when comparing various evo-psych theories, you have to ask yourself – which theory best fits the evidence that you see all around you?

    Like


  225. “I think we need a reader pole on how many men found this particular statement by AHE arousing. ”

    We also need a poll as to how many women here are thinking of reader poles…

    Like


  226. why did man create civilization? most were better off in the hunter gatherer world. only the elite were better off with agrculture.

    what do you mean by better off? if you care about relative status, then sure, we’d all be better off as a society of paupers with very little materail wealth.

    if, however, you care about objective well-being, it’s better to be a commoner in present-day america than to have been an egyptian pharoah.

    Like


  227. Whip ’em out JB

    Like


  228. Open and permitted promiscuity fits with the highly egalitarian and cooperative nature of tribal societies which shared everything else. Again, this isn’t noble savagery. These patterns were just more adaptive to survival in that environment. That wouldn’t be the case today. Religious brainwashing is a powerful force.

    so, human beings were all a bunch of happy, productive, swpl communalists until religion came along and screwed us up? interesting theory, but it’s bunk. if tribal societies were collectivist in nature and felt no need to delineate property, it was probably because they lacked technology. technology allows for the specialization that freed us from absolute dependency on the tribe and allows the improvements that make ownership worthwhile. there’s no point in owning a stick, but a spear is a different story.

    with technology you get the move from collectives to families and communities. and that move is what allowed us to go from squatting in the bush to building skyscrapers. it’s funny that so-called progressives seem intent on taking us back to squatting in the bush.

    Like


  229. Open and permitted promiscuity fits with the highly egalitarian and cooperative nature of tribal societies which shared everything else

    Where? Show me!

    I noted the case of Aussie Aborigines with their serial monogamy structure, but that was never an “open and permitted promiscuity” system. In fact just the opposite, it was a highly regulated system.

    As jr notes, the “sharing” was not present because of the goodness of their hearts, but a result of a lack of technology and a scarcity of resources, a matter of necessity.

    Sharing females (or males) may have been a temporary solution to population decrease problem, but never an instituted form. Any present day stone age culture is based on a monogamy patterns (with noted serial monogamy exception), thus a clearly delineated ownership ruleset. There is a good reason for it. Societies that indulge in “open and promiscuous” sharing don’t last long.

    Like


  230. Gorbachev is on the ball, as usual.

    Btw, someone explain to me this moderation thing. Chateau? A comment gets lost in moderation, then released much later – where it then remains buried behind a conversation that has moved on.

    I asked Jonathan twice for links to tribal societies that practice mate sharing.

    Like


  231. on August 26, 2010 at 11:33 am Professor Woland

    @novaseeker

    It is pretty simple actually. Eventually there will be a law that requires manditory paternity testing at birth. Right now, hospitals and social workers are keen on establishing paternity right away. They try and get the guy to “admit” a child is his and they pressure the woman to name a man. But, by establishing paternity, what is really meant is that a guy is named on the birth certificate. The first big chance for fraud occurs here. Either they guy does not know the child is someone else’s or the woman is alone and simply names somebody (sometimes women will claim the child is George Clooney’s or Brad Pitt’s).

    Why this will occur is that it is progressivly getting harder for women to get money from men. Women have no problem genetically establishing paternity if there is child support at stake. The problem is that many men do not figure out what has occured until much later. And when they do, they cannot collect money because women with children never have money. They are just told tough shit. The way men can protect themselves from this is manditory testing. Right now all you need is a snip of hair when she is not looking.

    on August 25, 2010 at 9:01 pm novaseeker
    @Professor –

    How do you see that happening politically? Most women are very much against mandatory paternity tests because it casts every woman as a potential cuckoldress. I don’t see male legislators having the balls to pass mandatory paternity testing laws any time soon, really.

    In the meantime, that means guys need to ask for these tests. And those are just fabulous conversations, because you’re basically telling your pregnant wife that you don’t trust her. Yeah, that conversation goes well, lol.

    Like


  232. on August 26, 2010 at 11:35 am Professor Woland

    @novaseeker,

    The reason the state wants to establish paternity is so they won’t have to pay for the bastard. We are running out of money and children born out of wedlock are crowding out everything else.

    Like


  233. the regime of federal child support enforcement was the mechanism by which “welfare reform” was accomplished

    Like


  234. Every woman does has the potential to be unfaithful. That would be a fair assumption.

    Like


  235. aoefeansar

    I think we need a reader pole on how many men found this particular statement by AHE arousing.

    do tell –
    Canadianan spelling
    – or Freudian Slip

    Like


  236. The Specimen be axin’:

    Ask yourself this, if you got caught balls deep in another man’s woman, who would be more likely to kill you over it, an asian guy or a black guy?

    duh, the black dude.
    the Asian won’t have time
    he’d be late for work

    Like


  237. Gunslinger,

    sounds like a great set-up. I used to travel thru Thai but I gave that up years ago.

    I must say though, if you don’t have to do any work or provide any source of income and your woman takes care of all that and you’re just a househusband that she feeds and fucks…shit, I think that might be rare…I knew a lot of guys in Thai but they were older, semi-retired and provided all the moola.

    but having said all that, I tip my hat to you. Do you live in Jakarta or in the country on a farm, local style? my guess is you’re on the farm with ox, buffalo, caribou, rice, and coconuts.

    am I right?

    Like


  238. on August 26, 2010 at 12:14 pm Gunslingergregi

    You may want to go back to previous thread where you asked same question and got an answer lol
    No guessing involved. he he he

    Like


  239. on August 26, 2010 at 12:16 pm Gunslingergregi

    I did provide her startup mula but have no additional mula nor retirement mula of my own. I put myself at her mercy because it was a romantic ideal I had that I had to see through to the bitter or blissfull end.

    Like


  240. on August 26, 2010 at 12:21 pm Gunslingergregi

    My hypothesis was basically by being non selfish and not caring about my own well being only the well being of another that karma would in fact smile on me.
    It has. But I also wanted to give more and listened to my dads advice to not do so. I lost all the money basically that I kept selfishly and if I would have followed my souls tug on the matter would have been both of us permanently retired instead of just my woman.
    Oh well I got to work again or maybe not I am still recieving more goodwill from another situation where I gave love for the right reasons and am recieving a return I didn’t expect.

    Like


  241. Let’s have a look at the animal kingdom: despite not having awareness as we count it, nor getting science lessons the alpha animals seem to have an instinctive grasp of the concept of ‘exclusive access’. No sharing so that the beta males feel empowered in the group and so might be enticed into making a larger contribution.

    Like


  242. ya the reason I ask is I knew a lot of expats is SE asia; it was always a dicey situation: some guys did well with great wives…others got fucked over….still others were shot and killed…some were imprisoned and some were set up by the police. I’ve never seen such fucked up situations as SE Asia.

    so ya, that’s why I was asking. I still know quite a few guys living over there. much different world.

    Like


  243. This is a great article and I love reading the debate. Once again, CR delivers a home run.

    Still, I can’t help but wondering why any of this matters at all? If we lived in a world where everybody fucked everybody OR one where virtuous monogamy was standard, I think most men would adjust rather well. Tons of dirty pussy or one righteous pussy – either way is fine as long as there’s pussy.

    Instead we live in a world where women want to fuck everything THEN go the monogamous route when their clocks start ticking and they need resources THEN go back to the fucking everything (with impunity of course) when her beta can’t make her happy.

    Isn’t that the real problem here?

    Like


  244. @original JB – “We also need a poll as to how many women here are thinking of reader poles…”

    yes, Yes, YES! Someone got my joke!

    Like


  245. Tekan

    Let’s have a look at the animal kingdom: despite not having awareness as we count it, nor getting science lessons the alpha animals seem to have an instinctive grasp of the concept of ‘exclusive access’.

    A few other commentors have noted the same thing. Isn’t it funny how people assume that people do things for reasons.

    Talk about head-on-a-stick over-educated. Can’t get out of their ideas when using introspection. What a frame!

    Like


  246. on August 26, 2010 at 1:16 pm (R)Evolutionary

    @Gorby,

    Nice work, as usual. That was a helluva post.

    Your lucid piece reiterates the need for your own blog, especially as the manosphere’s had a couple of defections, notably Seasons of Tumult & Discord. I’m just saying.

    Again, I’m hearted to see the intelligent and passionate debates here, knuckleheaded comments notwithstanding. Charles Darwin would be damned proud to see this discussion.

    Like


  247. on August 26, 2010 at 1:23 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””on August 26, 2010 at 12:47 pm Tim
    ya the reason I ask is I knew a lot of expats is SE asia; it was always a dicey situation: some guys did well with great wives…others got fucked over….still others were shot and killed…some were imprisoned and some were set up by the police. I’ve never seen such fucked up situations as SE Asia.
    ”””””””””
    Yea but imagine if they didn’t test you a little. You can’t come in and just shit on the place and you can’t have fear in your heart nor can you try to completely take advantage of system. Imagine how many people would be here otherwise he he he

    Like


  248. @Professor —

    I understand the benefits of mandatory paternity testing. I just don’t see how it would ever be enacted in most places because women will scream blue murder about it and they vote more than men do and vote in the interests of their sex much more consistently than men do. The state likes the current system just fine, really, and doesn’t care as long as someone is named as Dad. The law in a few places is actually moving in precisely the opposite direction — namely stating that a woman can name whomever she wants as the father. In most states a man only has a limited window to contest that in order for it not to be legally binding, regardless of the biology.

    Like


  249. Gorb, you’ve reminded us all that……….

    Intelligence is the highest ranked characteristic of all alpha traits. Our sex organs are in fact imbedded in our minds.

    Well written.

    Like


  250. on August 26, 2010 at 1:43 pm Gunslingergregi

    Yea the list of experts here on diferent topics is impressive.

    Gorb went out and read the book. Yea nice job on the scathing passage.

    I brought up some points but yea then I had to be the surfer dude rolling by as you guys were carrying the book thoughts around mua mua hahahahahahahaha

    Like


  251. Novaseeker, I think most women would be fine with mandatory paternity testing. It’s that the women who matter (the hot and the moneyed) don’t want to see it happen. So as usual, we all get held back because of the greed of a minority, but they are the most significant minority.

    I would personally love to see mandatory paternity testing. The DNA should be on record even if the woman doesn’t want to disclose who the father is at the time. If something happens to her or if the father wants his paternal rights, he should be able to get them without having to go through hell in court.

    Like


  252. As a matter of fact, since I realized so many women are okay with theft of sperm, a guy should be able to put his DNA on record and be notified if anyone has his babies.

    Like


  253. Nicole,
    It is not hot and moneyed women that are on the Maury Povich show searching for their baby daddy. Hot and moneyed women do cheat also, though.

    Like


  254. If women were consciously aware of the connection between what they find attractive and what arouses them — in the same way men are aware of the connection — then women might be less inclined to remain loyal to the beta provider, and thus jeopardize the raising of their young.

    No, honey, it’s just that sane women are more than life size sexual organs frantically seeking out that which leads to nymphomania and a life of hellish sexual addiction. The more consciously aware we are of what our vaginas think is attractive, and the results of pursuing only THAT, the more we avoid ONLY that. It’s called being a balanced sane human being. Ever heard of it? ^_^

    Like


  255. @sara

    Yeah, but that would be a sigma approach (hamster by-pass) and they are RARE.

    Like


  256. on August 26, 2010 at 2:21 pm Professor Woland

    @novaseeker

    I said the technology is now in front with the law to follow someday. Women are better organized politically and way ahead in that race too but it is all relavant. At some point that will change. It might take a decade or two but in the long run paternity fraud will become less and less common.

    When I posted above that paternity fraud is the female on male equavalent of rape, I was not exagerating. Paternity fraud will never be acceptable to men, ever, under any circumstance. The men who get ripped off will never tolerate it. Women can get away with this much easier if men are isolated and politically fragmented. That won’t stay that way forever. There is no justification for paternity fraud.

    Like


  257. What this controversy shows is the general weakness of “evolutionary psychology” as a framework. Obviously human psychology evolved but since how it evolved is highly sensitive to the exact details of cultural and material pressures that existed tens of thousands of years ago. Since we don’t know these details, evolutionary psychology — especially in its pull-it-out-of-your-ass internet form — just devolves into wildly speculative “just so stories”. People take whatever their favorite prejudices are and just claim that nature intended it.

    The high rate of violence among pre-historic societies is actually good evidence *against* most of the wildly oversimplified evolutionary speculations you see on the net. Why? Because high levels of prehistoric violence mean that group genetic selection could have taken place (see Samuel Bowles models of this in Nature) and also argue for a strong link between genetic and cultural selection. Once you get group and cultural selection then people are evolving for cultural behaviors that contribute to social and communal solidarity and discipline, which is both very complex and historically dependent, and decidedly not “PUA-oriented”.

    Like


  258. Novaseeker–

    In the meantime, that means guys need to ask for these tests. And those are just fabulous conversations, because you’re basically telling your pregnant wife that you don’t trust her. Yeah, that conversation goes well, lol.

    The right time to have that conversation is when she’s living with you and is asking you directly or more likely indirectly (“where’s this relationship going, if anywhere”) to marry her. You should put it in the prenup that she agrees to it for each birth. Tell her it’s your policy for any woman, not her in particular. Cuckoldry esp. if it results in a child is the rape of a male. She’s against rape, right?

    Like


  259. Novaseeker–

    Any man these days who doesn’t regard marriage even with a prenup that mimics living together in the event of a divorce, as an incredible one way gift to women (what with hugely jacked up by feminists child support=also stealth alimony that can’t be changed in a prenup), is a feminist and chivalrous culturally deluded fool.

    Women should have to ask, no beg, to be married basically. Then attach conditions. Else don’t do it.

    Like


  260. Laura

    I’m not sure that all men are really possessive of their women. I worked with one man who told me that he didn’t care if his wife had an affair as long as he was having one.

    We talk a lot around here about females projecting their gender typical reactions wrongly onto men in many situations. But some men do the same thing. It’s more rare because our culture tells men that they’re dogs and women are monogamous but it still happens with some men.

    I.e. the chances are that this guy is making a grave miscalculation and that unlike him, his wife is likely to fall at least somewhat in love with the guy she’s having an affair with, and even if she doesn’t leave him for that guy (who’s likely married and won’t leave his wife), the affair has a high likelihood of dissolving the sexual attraction she had for her husband at least somewhat still before the affair, completely.

    So this guy is being a dufus, at least if he wants to keep his wife as his willing full up sex partner.

    Like


  261. re: gangbang porn: gee, let’s see, what historical human activity might have spurred the fascination with gangbang porn? Should we believe this Christopher Ryan ding dong who thinks it’s because men like sharing women polyamorously? Or should we notice that primitive man, like whales and other animals, don’t have any laws against rape? Jayzus; even the feminists get this one right.

    Like


  262. Stretching sociobiology into love and romance is a stretch.

    the modern western culture of fanatical narcissism/nihilism plays the seminal role in modern dating habits. obviously, perpetually bored, jaded, cold, ADD, lost and infantile modern women will favor “alpha” type men to provide some direction to their empty lives.

    “betas” did infinitely better 100 years ago during the tail end of the victorian era b/c virtue and restraint were respected more. find a girl with an attention span who reads victorian literature and is virginal and you’ll be much more likely to find a woman who will like beta traits, like affection.

    Like


  263. “Where does the concept that private property existed only after the rise of agriculture come from and what is the evidence for this? ”

    I seriously doubt there is any. Anyone who’s observed an 18 month old baby play with it’s siblings knows that private property is most definitely a hard-wired concept in our brains.

    “Mine! Mine! MIIIIIIIIIINE!”

    Kids learn the word, but they’re born with the concept. They have to be taught to share.

    Kind of funny that a publisher signed this Ryan guy’s rationalization hampster to a book deal.

    Like


  264. @Gunslingergregi

    “I thought it was to watch “fist of the north star”

    Wikied it, looks good, have to check it out, Thanx.

    Like


  265. Gunslinger,

    you an older guy? just curious…most of the men I met in SE Asia were north of 50. have you seen these types in Indo? They’re all over thailand. white, overweight, bald, 60 yrs old with 30 yr old wife…(not that there’s anything wrong with that)

    Like


  266. Yeah, and I doubt their wives are faithful.

    Like


  267. @Xsplat
    So this is why women have a dual mating strategy. The A type make shitty dads, but great cads.

    Thanks Xsplat. What I think we are both in agreement on then is that the beta (k) strategy has been more effective from an evolutionary perspective than the alpha (r) strategy, at least for Europeans and Asians. Would you agree? Put another way, sneaky fuckers have their day, but not often enough to out compete the lowly beta.

    Like


  268. on August 26, 2010 at 4:23 pm gunslingergregi

    Yea that is pretty tight for them then.

    Not like that here.

    But yea most my older bros that went thailand route were in shape and not really that old one dude started family at 42.
    But yea the thing I took from their experiences so far was that it was a good one.
    I’m almost 35 same age as jesus.

    But yea are you one of rains disciples?

    Like


  269. I agree with CH in the artile, except for the part about porn. I do agree that most men aren’t watching another man’s face, and indeed they aren’t even attracted to the male in question 99.9% of the time.

    However I read somewhere that straight, heterosexual porno does invoke a reaction in the brains of most heterosexual men, due to a primordial urge to compete with the other man mating in the movie. From what this study shows, straight men tend to get more aroused at M/F porn than F/F lesbian porn due not to any sort of homosexual urges (SWPL’s and gays would love to assume this) but rather our male instinct to compete and fight for our gene expression against the other man.

    Of course common sense tells us that a naked woman alone is enough to get most men interested, but the porn and male competition thing is an addded boost in some cases.

    Like


  270. on August 26, 2010 at 4:39 pm Stud Dynamite

    @Fred, Ryan is a Game-hater? Guarding a single female and acting oh-so-alpha providing for her with “empire you built” is suddenly game? lollz.

    Tired of plowing through all the comments, xplat seems to get it, bit disappointed in Gorby’s post.
    Yes it is true, there are and always were status games, but they have little to do with monogamy, besides the fact that yes if you signed up for monogamous relationship and got screwed, your status hurts = jealousy. No relationship – no jealousy.

    Didn’t want to repost out of the not-free book, so googled it, looks like it’s posted by author himself, can’t really put it better:
    http://www.puahate.com/showpost.php?s=3155aae417f561d2aebec206f4aa41b7&p=19360&postcount=5


    The dirty secret we all don’t want to admit is that there is an undercurrent of sexual tension between men and women so strong that if allowed to run free would result in everybody hooking up all the time.

    A huge fuck fest. A complete orgy. We can’t let this happen. How would men ever feel loved? How would women sell purity?
    That is why man invented things like Burkas, religion, and the cock blocking paparazzi. Girls may have and use asd but most guys are also sexually repressed. We all fear the truth about the sexual tension that exists naturally between a man and a woman . That’s why most people interact from a “safe and polite”
    distance.

    If you don’t feel that “tension” talking to any fuckable chick, off-limits or not, you gotta be a eunuch/superbeta – or maybe you feel it talking to dudes. Lollz lollz lollz.

    Like


  271. Rio, male competition has nothing to do with it.

    Don’t be absurd.

    Think about it, instead of parotting some intellectual garbage you read which has no bearing on reality.

    You imagine the cock is your own. That’s one of the reasons I can’t watch porn which has a tiny-cocked guy, or a ridiculously-massive cocked (mandingo-style) guy.

    Like


  272. Dalrock, in the past, society was more stratified. One may say that beside alphas (which was more of a class attribute than a reflection of possession of a game), there were betas, gammas, deltas… The betas did not fare so bad. They had a degree of natural game, enough to preserve a monogamous relationship and make it work.

    The marxist prerogative is always to flatten the stratification. Level the playing field as it were where all are equal except the more equal. You then are either alpha or beta. The current beta is a product of feminist intervention in the society stratification. The old beta was what is here called lower alpha or upper beta and there was far more of them. Both my grandparents were. There was only one omega in my large family (about 400 people), and not many gammas (lower betas in couples where woman wore the pants).

    The process of feminist emasculation and re-stratification was quite a success, but as with all attempts to remake the the society into a “better world”, a rule of unintended consequences and chaos principles kicked in due to extremely fast (2 generation) time frame. The antibodies are starting to kick in.

    Like


  273. Additional note… marxists never intend to make everyone equally rich. Just the opposite–making everyone equally poor. Except the more equal ones. As I overheard one uberlib rich bitch stating: “What is the point of being well off if everyone is?”

    Like


  274. Steve Sailer also wrote about bonobos being Darwinian losers:

    http://www.isteve.com/chimps.htm

    Like


  275. That sounds about right to me Morsellaux. I argued a similar point on my blog post on wimpy betas and gun control. Basically I think we have over civilized men, and the beta type personality is the one which is most influenced. So most natural greater betas end up something much sadder. At the same time we have un-civilized women, which has lead to our current situation.

    But this still challenges the quote that I called out in the beginning:

    Women’s impetuous promiscuity is a function of their ovulatory cycle, in large part, where they seek alpha genes one week out of the month.

    I think your explanation points more to the view that Athol Kay has that women want a (perfect of course) balance of alpha and beta traits.

    Like


  276. Dalrock, I think your explanation points more to the view that Athol Kay has that women want a (perfect of course) balance of alpha and beta traits.

    Let me put it this way, they want alpha via gina tingle and on a conscious level a caring partner. Result is an internal conflict. Only sigmas (or sarahs per comment up thread) disregard the gina tingle as a false positive. But they do not seek betas, but other sigmas, their male counterparts. Their mutual primary directive is: “I’ve got your back.”

    Yes, they are outliers.

    Like


  277. on August 26, 2010 at 10:03 pm Gunslingergregi

    Dam yo I am almost 35 not quite some months but dam.

    Time flies like a mug. Got out the army at 26 hit kuwait at 28 hit iraq at 29 left iraq at 33.

    Time flies. Shit.

    I was supposed to be dead by now lol

    Like


  278. on August 26, 2010 at 10:06 pm Gunslingergregi

    I do have bros who were fine even completely starting lives over at 50, 60, 70, and 80. So yea I guess not so old good to be a man I guess.

    Like


  279. what’s a rain disciple? googled it and still no answers.

    No, I live in Vancouver but for many years I booted all over thailand, north and south. got involved with a female and it was great and all, then she started to nag. she was gorgeous when I met her, great body and thin, then she met me and suddenly I guess she found her excuse to stop keeping her body in shape. started eating a lot. ballooned up to 145 lbs. wasn’t the same woman as the woman I met. so I broke it off with her.

    I mean, I’m not trying to sound mean and all, but c’mon, a woman can’t expect to just get fat like that and expect her man not to say anything.

    so ya that explains my questions. some guys make it over there in se asia. me I’m back to square one. sounds like you got a keeper. nice to hear success stories. sometimes I miss those tropical days with the sandy beaches and swaying palm trees. hell, I even liked bombing around on her farm on a motorbike. eating sticky rice with chilis and thai beer.

    don’t get me started….

    Like


  280. Gun, only 35yo? I will now refer to you as Gun the Kid! 😉

    Like


  281. on August 26, 2010 at 11:34 pm Gunslingergregi

    lol what did her mom look like?

    Or did he live near you?

    Like


  282. on August 26, 2010 at 11:36 pm Gunslingergregi

    Not yet Morsellaux but I am kind of afraid if I live to 35 I will fullfill my destiny and become the anti-christ.

    I have been trying to save you all. he he he

    Like


  283. on August 26, 2010 at 11:46 pm Gunslingergregi

    That would be a she live near you.

    And no I am not afraid of 35 at all lol

    But yea whats your age bracket Morsellaux?

    Course your gonna die old man!

    But really older people never really bothered me. I get along with them ok normally.

    Like


  284. Gun, not that old, but not really young either. Physically, I feel 30 (though I heal disconcertingly slower), and waking up with a hard on on most of the time. Mentally–my job requires to learn new things all the time so that keeps me on my toes as the neurons’ firing is concerned.

    But chronologically, I am admittedly a dinosaur at 56.

    My last X was 11 years younger, and if I am to marry again (somehow the idea does not give me any tingles at the moment), I think I’ll try 25 years spread at minimum.

    Like


  285. Wow, Gorbachev DEMOLISHED that idiotic leftist book. Great job, Gorby.

    Like


  286. dalrock

    @Xsplat
    So this is why women have a dual mating strategy. The A type make shitty dads, but great cads.

    Thanks Xsplat. What I think we are both in agreement on then is that the beta (k) strategy has been more effective from an evolutionary perspective than the alpha (r) strategy, at least for Europeans and Asians. Would you agree? Put another way, sneaky fuckers have their day, but not often enough to out compete the lowly beta.

    I don’t quite agree. I think any society has castes, and wherever you have 20 beta providers, you will have one backdoor man.

    Is there any niche that doesn’t get filled? Betas provide a niche, and you can’t get rid of back door men.

    In fact, betas will turn into back door men, once their T rises with success.

    So yes, beta’s outperform as parents. No, they don’t outperform in terms of number of offspring per man.

    Like


  287. on August 27, 2010 at 8:54 am David Collard

    I think in animal behaviour parlance a “sneaky fucker” is not an alpha; more a clever, sneaky beta. In fact, the “sneaky fuckers” fuck the alpha’s females when he is not looking.

    Morsellaux, you are slightly older than me. But I am still fucking the same woman I married 25 years ago. Lately I have put her to work sucking my cock before I fuck her. Never too late to learn something new.

    Like


  288. Um, even animals know which babies are theirs and will eat the ones that aren’t. I’m pretty sure we’ve cared about paternity since we were monkey people.

    Like


  289. on August 27, 2010 at 1:38 pm gunslingergregi

    ”””””””’on August 27, 2010 at 2:20 am Morsellaux
    Gun, not that old, but not really young either. Physically, I feel 30 (though I heal disconcertingly slower), and waking up with a hard on on most of the time. Mentally–my job requires to learn new things all the time so that keeps me on my toes as the neurons’ firing is concerned.

    But chronologically, I am admittedly a dinosaur at 56.

    My last X was 11 years younger, and if I am to marry again (somehow the idea does not give me any tingles at the moment), I think I’ll try 25 years spread at minimum.
    ”””””””””’

    ”””25 years spread at minimum”””’

    Are we talking light years cause that is a pretty big gina. he he he

    But yea 56 ain’t bad you should be able to get some youngins. Like I said before my dad had a young stripper enthralled with stories but had the god crutch to insure he got none. lol

    Like


  290. on August 27, 2010 at 1:44 pm gunslingergregi

    I don’t know if you realize but sigma females tend to be in those types of situations. How else can they find another sigma male? he he he

    Like


  291. Yes, David, you can differentiate between the sneaky fucker, and the alpha.

    But there is an overlap of traits. Both tend to be selfish cads with high T who take tremendous risks.

    Like


  292. Right, time to get a bit ‘racist’. Rum mentions of a mental ‘anaesthetic’ to help women cope with living the rest of their lives with provider betas. This particular civilisation stabiliser is more present in European societies than in sexually incontinent everyone-fucking-everyone Sub-Saharan Africa. Let me try to provide an explanation.

    In Europe, populations have greater mental capacity for long-term foresight, albeit resulting in complicated status nuances (alpha makes her look desirable, provider beta makes her look stable) and subsequent cognitive dissonance. More intelligent populations are evolutionarily advantaged enough to lie to themselves about their impulses for the sake of principle or greater good. Unfortunately that ability said people have to bury their heads in the sand at will has spawned shit like liberal-leftism.

    “The reality is that we’re snarling feral animals who’ve found a way to cloak our aggression in politeness, bureaucracy and a pernicious herd morality.” – Brett Stevens

    How ironic that an ideology is the very product of the biological reality it does its utmost to deny? No surprise places like northernmost Sweden are so liberal. Let’s just hope said high-mindedness does not lead advanced societies to their downfall.

    Like


  293. on August 27, 2010 at 2:15 pm gunslingergregi

    ””””’sexually incontinent everyone-fucking-everyone Sub-Saharan Africa.”””””

    Have you lived there and seen this?

    Is this the truth?

    I think not.

    Like


  294. on August 27, 2010 at 2:17 pm gunslingergregi

    I’ll be checking out somalia one of these days though. I’ll let you know.

    But from my buddy with the somali wife who had his kid. It is not like this.

    Like


  295. on August 27, 2010 at 2:19 pm gunslingergregi

    They live diferent than the west to be sure. Doesn’t mean they are not happy.

    Like


  296. @Xsplat
    So yes, beta’s outperform as parents. No, they don’t outperform in terms of number of offspring per man.

    This is the core of my question though. Personality types can be influenced by nurture, but there is a strong genetic component. If an individual with an alpha personality is more successful genetically than an individual with a beta personality, then alpha personality would over time become the dominant personality. But I think we are all in agreement that it isn’t. This isn’t about who marries the woman, it is about who fathers the child. And the results tell me that betas are the ones fathering the children.

    This isn’t some subtle trait which would take forever to experience selection pressure on like ability to hear your neighbors gossip or resistance to an uncommon disease. This is about reproductive success, plain and simple.

    Like


  297. Dalrock, you may have missed my point about castes, and niches.

    A society won’t be strongest with either all providers or all cads. Neither strategy on it’s own is more effective than the other, for individuals or for societies. It is only when the bulk of guys play provider, will a minority of guys succeed as cads.

    Rest assured, as soon as you have any imbalance in the ratio one way or the other, it will self correct. The niches will be filled. Nature abhors a vacuum.

    Think of any social insect. That is human society. We are not homogeneous, and if we were, we would soon striate out into castes.

    The alpha guys make shitty parents, overall, sure, but they also are essential to any war machine and tend to be top business leaders. They have their good and bad points. Any society without them would perish in any cross culture conflict. But my point is not about social fitness – it’s about niches unavoidably getting filled. Societies by their nature create niches. People unavoidably specialize – and yes, genetically some of us are predisposed to be cads – high risk takers that chaffe at any sort of conformity and are apt to say fuck you and go to jail rather than get ripped off. People who never give up, never give in, and never buckle under to anyone, even at huge risk and tremendous ongoing effort. People who will risk death for a fuck.

    It makes little sense to say that there must be an ultimate strategy. If so, all life would be parasites, and there would be no hosts. Symbiants would evolve into a one independent organism. The deer would grow it’s own grass on it’s back. Human society is an ecosystem. An ecosystem of castes.

    Like


  298. I’m going to try to be concise.

    Alpha=more sociopathic/dark triad=better warrior

    As a tribe lost Alphas in conflict, hunting, war, etc, the tribe would have to make more somehow. Alphas protected the Beta village laborers and were very important. Thus women evolved to have gina tingles to Alphas in order to quickly repopulate them as their numbers tended to drastically dip during times of war and such. This insured that Alpha babies were born even though Alphas would only be around for brief periods of time.

    This theory is more fleshed out then this in my head but I have to poopy real bad…..

    Like


  299. “The deer would grow it’s own grass on it’s back.”

    This is true alpha.

    Like


  300. on August 27, 2010 at 7:23 pm 1987 James Hetfield

    Rio said:

    “I agree with CH in the artile, except for the part about porn. I do agree that most men aren’t watching another man’s face, and indeed they aren’t even attracted to the male in question 99.9% of the time.

    However I read somewhere that straight, heterosexual porno does invoke a reaction in the brains of most heterosexual men, due to a primordial urge to compete with the other man mating in the movie. From what this study shows, straight men tend to get more aroused at M/F porn than F/F lesbian porn due not to any sort of homosexual urges (SWPL’s and gays would love to assume this) but rather our male instinct to compete and fight for our gene expression against the other man.

    Of course common sense tells us that a naked woman alone is enough to get most men interested, but the porn and male competition thing is an addded boost in some cases.”

    Rio, +10 Christ, I read all the way through these comments thinking I’d make this very point.

    The author’s take on porn is completely gay and idiotic. He is off for precisely the reason Rio outlined, imo: porn isn’t so much about identifying with the man; its about the visceral, hindbrain reaction of JEALOUSY that the primal scene brings out.

    This points to a possible sordid human history, possibly reptile-era shit, in which we had sex out in the open. Seeing another man do your woman (any woman?) would be a good time to get revved up to replace his seed. Something along these lines, anyway. See the penis-as-squeeqee theory. I find that utterly fucked up, and probably true.

    This explains alot. Jealousy is not something we are proud of or that makes us feel good; hence the shame of admitting to watching porn. Can anyone really claim to be proud of watching porn, aside from some jew on comedy central?

    More evidence? Male porn stars are fucking ugly. And there is of course a sick trend in porn that is conspicuous in its absence in discussions among pro-western men…

    Porn is sick.

    Like


  301. There are some misconceptions here about sub-Saharan Africa. It is not a sexual free-for-all. Wealthy and powerful men typically have multiple wives. Sometimes those wives get banged on the side by sneaky fuckers, but the if the sneaky fuckers get caught they are in heap of trouble. Sometimes the wife is too. (Recall the Nigerian woman who was stoned to death for adultery.) Among those who cannot afford multiple wives, serial monogamy is common but not universal.
    It is a far cry from saying “everybody fucks everybody”, which is just not true.

    The leftist vision of “free love” does not exist anywhere, and never has, except in the fantasies of deluded leftists.

    Like


  302. Cyning said: “Let’s just hope said high-mindedness does not lead advanced societies to their downfall.”

    I think it already has.

    Like


  303. I like your post. Great. Keep going..

    Like


  304. […] Chateau – “The Plain Girl Test“, “Sex at Dusk” […]

    Like


  305. I should probably clarify in light of recent remarks. I would say that in SSA, population levels exceed that which is sustainable vis-a-vis natural resources, hence all the starvation.

    Like


  306. Man discovered fire a million years ago, started fishing 80-100K years ago, was making wine in Europe 30K years ago but somehow he never realized that fucking a woman often meant she would later give birth until what? private property was invented? Yeah, right.

    Let me guess his reasoning: capitalism is private property and private property is patriarchy and patriarchy is monogamy. Attack monogamy and you attack patriarchy, private property and capitalism. And racism, classism, sexism, heterocentrism, and a whole lot of -isms.

    It’s the Frankfurt School ideology wearing a bonobo costume. Stephen Jay Gould and Herbert Marcuse would be proud of Mr.Ryan.

    Jonathan:
    “Everyone who discusses primates compares us to Chimps and Apes. But leaves out the Bonobo. Even though genetically, we are equidistant to them as we are Chimps. Curious.”

    not that curious since chimpanze behavior is closer to human behavior than the bonobos and they behave the way they do without agriculture and minimal material possessions.

    I’ll save Gorbachev’s reply in a file for later if someone brings up this book into a discussion. thank you

    Like


  307. Sexual addiction, as defined by psychologists, is a ‘progressive intimacy disorder characterize by compulsive sexual thoughts and acts. if you want to learn more then visit this sites http://www.adultswingersclub.com.au

    Like


  308. Yeah this blog post pretty much decimated the theses of the book, showing that it’s all mere speculation.

    Like


  309. Some of you (most of you) should actually read the book in question before commenting on it. This comment section reads like a parade of missing chromosomes.

    Like


  310. Cuckold porn is about being the cuckolder, not the cuckoldee, for all but a vanishingly small number of viewers. Some people just say otherwise because, like the natural-born racial cuckolds they are, they don’t want to admit that “blacks banging MILFs” (and “blacks banging everything else”) is largely a BLACK MAN’S fantasy, not a white man’s.

    Like