19 January, 2011

Sex @ Dawn

Great book. Basically, the nexus of it is that the one on one relationship that we are all hammered to believe in and mainly aspire to have is rather an unnatural byproduct of agriculturalization and turning women into property. The argument goes that the first, say 95% of humanities time on earth we lived in hunter/gatherer tribes where everything is shared. Nobody had anything - since we were always on the move, who had time to cart around possessions? So - since there were no possesions to hand down or farms to protect - paternity was not an issue. Therefore, since there wasn't anysorta deal about paternity, everyone took care of each other - the men didn't know whose kids were who - but ince they mite be "mine" - then all children would be protected.

Pretty kool. And for 95% of our existence - meaning 95% of my and your gramma's and grandpa's - did the 'free love' thing. 190,000 out of the 200,000 years of human's existence.

But then the Agricultural Revolution. Property started then - hey, we farm here, and we will farm here the next year as well. So - the best fields and positions of power? These needed to be passed down to the top-dudes sons - and so the importance of paternity.


The scientists say...? The authors argue that for too long the science of sex and relationships served Power - and not Truth. So, some examples are - scientists concentrated on Chimps and Gibbons for their scientific findings - but the authors feel that Bonobos are a better fit for scienctific lookings into human sexuality. The authors also find fault with other older scientific leanings - too much relying on more modern huntergather groups for data (seven tribes are mentioned), where the authors see these groups -- and thus the data --as being spoiled by modern society. They then turn out data on other tribes that ahdn't been yet touched by the West (journals from explorers in the 1700's where these groups practice of sexuality was like the hunter/gathers, scientists who were the first Westerners in an area who studied remote tribes, etc etc etc...)

Much more. Humans penis and ....whats the word ? .... Oh, just use 'balls' ... compared to a chimps? Our equipement, the authors write, was designed for .. well, group sex. The thrusting? Alone among the primates do we thrust and thrust and thrust - and scientists see that this thrusting creates a vacum that pulls out liquid - ok, seamon - from the womens insides. When a man comes, the shaft first deflates but not the head- letting everything to drain out below the head - which keeps inflated and keeps everything deposited by the latest lover inside her.

What - fucking men and their obsessions? The authors cant get beyond the difference in men getting jiggy wit it - for a few minutes, and then crashing out after the deed is done. How the hll is that compatible w. women taking the time of her life to warm up and have orgasm after orgasm? And her screaming - why are men so quiet, and women are LOUD!?!? Well, they feel women have multiple lovers, and as each dude does his deeds and she loves it, she wants it more and more and tells everyone so.

So - cuckolding - which there was a question in Dan Savage's column some months ago that first interested me in the book amidst the hails of laughter- appears to be a way to make guys get even hotter = since y'know, the whole group sex thing, and the women has bales of lovers, all @ once, and the dudes just havta wait around, and watching gets them even hotter (think the phrase'men are visual', and 'men like porn', and....) - so hot, that when it comes their time to play with the female, the dude can thrust even harder and more committed and more and make sure that it's HIS sperm that....... oh, what ever....

Ok, oooook, ok. I know. You have a wife, or a husband, and property, or are muey Conservative, or .... whatever.... and all of this science stuff is clabbertrap and you are deeply offended. But ... read the book. My impramateur is on it. Hell of a lot more than the digressions here. Again - read it - very interesting.

Salon interview

No comments: