Bobby C wrote:
"An idea permeates our modern view of relationships: that men and women have always paired off in sexually exclusive relationships. But before the dawn of agriculture, humans may actually have been quite promiscuous. Author Christopher Ryan walks us through the controversial evidence that human beings are sexual omnivores by nature, in hopes that a more nuanced understanding may put an end to discrimination, shame and the kind of unrealistic expectations that kill relationships."

TED Talk:Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJhklPJz9U8

I guess some of us have evolved a little bit since before the dawn of agriculture.

Bobby C wrote:
"An idea permeates our modern view of relationships: that men and women have always paired off in sexually exclusive relationships. But before the dawn of agriculture, humans may actually have been quite promiscuous. Author Christopher Ryan walks us through the controversial evidence that human beings are sexual omnivores by nature, in hopes that a more nuanced understanding may put an end to discrimination, shame and the kind of unrealistic expectations that kill relationships."

TED Talk:Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJhklPJz9U8

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
I guess some of us have evolved a little bit since before the dawn of agriculture.

Evolution is driven by, among other things, survival advantage. I think, like some other species, we found monogamous relationships in our society to be more beneficial for security. Traditionally, the man provided the hut and food to get the sex, the woman provided the sex to get the hut and food, and if competition was lessened within the tribe for that, society was better greased to keep moving.

But in my observation, people in general are not naturally monogamous. When they are monogamous, they're usually responding to society's mores rather than their own instincts.

Koryn wrote:
I think some people are, and some people aren't.

Some people also find their sexual needs and orientations may fluctuate, or change, over the decades of their lives.

People's sexual needs are also greatly influenced by how many, or how few, sexual opportunities they have.

People who are seen as sexually attractive have far more opportunities to discover things they are into sexually than people who are seen as far less attractive.

DEP E510 wrote:
What people are by nature is irrelevant.

Society, laws, and religion are realities not easily overcome...

The state of Nature, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists...

Even dogs have to live with leashes... and never experience the freedom of their ancestors...

If "..nature is irrelevant" and "no longer exists", does all life on Earth exist in a vacuum ?
Just because certain "realities are not easily overcome", doesn't it mean that sometimes they are overcome ? Isn't "serial monogamy" a way to bypass the "realities" of modern Western societies ?
What about the plentiful number of stray dogs, without any owners that are not tied to leashes ?

Justin wrote:

Bobby C wrote:
"An idea permeates our modern view of relationships: that men and women have always paired off in sexually exclusive relationships. But before the dawn of agriculture, humans may actually have been quite promiscuous. Author Christopher Ryan walks us through the controversial evidence that human beings are sexual omnivores by nature, in hopes that a more nuanced understanding may put an end to discrimination, shame and the kind of unrealistic expectations that kill relationships."

TED Talk:Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJhklPJz9U8

Evolution is driven by, among other things, survival advantage. I think, like some other species, we found monogamous relationships in our society to be more beneficial for security. Traditionally, the man provided the hut and food to get the sex, the woman provided the sex to get the hut and food, and if competition was lessened within the tribe for that, society was better greased to keep moving.

But in my observation, people in general are not naturally monogamous. When they are monogamous, they're usually responding to society's mores rather than their own instincts.

I would venture to say that evolution is completely tied to survival advantage. Evolution isn't limited to just biology however, and I think includes what you call "society's mores" as a key component for long-term survival of the species.

Bobby C wrote:

If "..nature is irrelevant" and "no longer exists", does all life on Earth exist in a vacuum ?
Just because certain "realities are not easily overcome", doesn't it mean that sometimes they are overcome ? Isn't "serial monogamy" a way to bypass the "realities" of modern Western societies ?
What about the plentiful number of stray dogs, without any owners that are not tied to leashes ?

There was a book I read a while back written by a female author.

She asked a question: what are women sexually by Nature?

She wrote that she had no idea what women were by nature, she didn't even know her own sexuality!

She said she grew up in a conservative environment, and was a virgin all the way through college.

She said all her female friends called her a nerd and encouraged her to have sex-- to no avail.

But after college, she met a man twice her age and became sexually active.

She wrote she had dozens of sex partners after him.

When she told her ex-college friends about how she wasn't conservative anymore, they called her stupid and reckless for engaging in casual sex in the age of Aids.

The geek was now the outcast.

After this, she settled down, got married and became monogamous.

Her question is, who was she? The virgin, the promiscuous single woman, or the monogamous wife she now was?

She wrote that she had no idea. All of the women she had been felt right at the time.

She summed up by saying it is impossible for humans to know what they want sexually because humans are never left to decide for themselves what they want sexually.

All humans are affected by societal teachings, religion, and sexual laws.

It is impossible for humans to have a clean slate from which to shape their own sexuality.

Even if a human forges their own way sexually, they know they are in some way rebelling against society/ religion...

Koryn wrote:
I think some people are, and some people aren't.

Some people also find their sexual needs and orientations may fluctuate, or change, over the decades of their lives.

Yup.

There was a time when I was strictly monogamous.  End.Of.Story.  However, over the last year or so, I've found myself evolving into a more accepting view of polyamory, and a willingness to explore it.

I think, in the grand scheme, creatures find a way to perpetuate the line, and that could very well involve non-monogamous relationships.

DivaEroticus wrote:
There was a time when I was strictly monogamous.  End.Of.Story.  However, over the last year or so, I've found myself evolving into a more accepting view of polyamory, and a willingness to explore it.

I think, in the grand scheme, creatures find a way to perpetuate the line, and that could very well involve non-monogamous relationships.

Certainly, if enough people evolve to exist in "alternative" relationships, and they consistently  produce offspring which are better equipped to compete in society than their monogamous counterparts, then they may wind up at a higher position on the evolutionary tree.

DivaEroticus wrote:

Yup.

There was a time when I was strictly monogamous.  End.Of.Story.  However, over the last year or so, I've found myself evolving into a more accepting view of polyamory, and a willingness to explore it.

I think, in the grand scheme, creatures find a way to perpetuate the line, and that could very well involve non-monogamous relationships.

I never felt much interest in monogamy until the past couple of years, and it had nothing to do with "meeting the right person," or any of that bullshit. For years, I could be in love with multiple people at a time, and sustain fulfilling relationships with multiple people at the same time. Slowly, I found myself more interested in just exploring aspects of sexuality and commitment in a monogamous fashion, and I'm not sure why that change happened. It just did. Shit changes, people change. Interests change. One isn't "better" than the other, just different.

Justin wrote:
Evolution is driven by, among other things, survival advantage.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
I would venture to say that evolution is completely tied to survival advantage.

Well, I would say so, too. I said "driven by, among other things." There are other factors involved. Mutation, for example.

Evolution isn't limited to just biology however, and I think includes what you call "society's mores" as a key component for long-term survival of the species.

Well, I'm pretty certain that society has mores, and if they're a key component for survival, which I also agree with, that makes them biological to that extent.

Edge of the Moon wrote:
Unfortunately for me, I've never had a good relationship.
So I've never been able to explore what I like sexually.
I've never been able to be with someone that I like.
I can't get laid to save my life.

Absolutely.

Nature is subject to circumstances.

The fewer sexual outlets you have available, the less likely you are to discover your sexual truth.

Edge of the Moon wrote:
Unfortunately for me, I've never had a good relationship.
So I've never been able to explore what I like sexually.
I've never been able to be with someone that I like.
I can't get laid to save my life.

You sound like a good candidate for "pity sex".
I think you should work that angle.

Bobby C wrote:
"An idea permeates our modern view of relationships: that men and women have always paired off in sexually exclusive relationships. But before the dawn of agriculture, humans may actually have been quite promiscuous. Author Christopher Ryan walks us through the controversial evidence that human beings are sexual omnivores by nature, in hopes that a more nuanced understanding may put an end to discrimination, shame and the kind of unrealistic expectations that kill relationships."

TED Talk:Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJhklPJz9U8

Sounds like he wants women to accept that he's going to fuck other women and that they should be ok with it and have dinner ready when he gets home.

Click Hamilton wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out what Sexual Omnivores means. A sexual person or animal that eats both plants and animals? Yes, I like sex, meat, fish, foul, fruits, nuts, M&M's, smoothies and vegetables. I like fish tacos. Sometimes fish tacos are fun to share. Cannibalism does not fit my mindset.

Strange word choice.

---

Who hasn't had multiple sexual partners during their lives? Sex is a human motivation and it manifests itself in many ways during different phases of our lives.

There is lots of rationalization, excuses and societal pressures to conform to things artificially that can bend the laws of nature pretty far out of shape.

I would say that for most of our adult lives, sex is an important element in building sexual relationships. Sometimes it's for fun and relaxation. Sometimes for adventure. Building good relationships and personal bonding comes from lots of other important elements and values too.

In the end, I think the relationships we have with the people we love and those who are important to us is basically the highest purpose of life. I know it is for me.

I have never been married. I have lots of good relationships. They are all unique and some are strikingly different from the others. Many have lasted for many years with no indication of abating. Some for a lifetime. Some were sweet and ephemeral. I am free to do as I wish. I'm not sure if there's anything I can do to improve on that equation.

It depends. We make choices as we go. We learn from experience. My freedom to do so is important to me. I would not do well in a prison.

My mother has only ever been with my father. She lost her virginity to him on their wedding night, and has never been with another person, and swears that if their marriage ever ended, she'd do the "right" thing, and never be with another man. This is common for women in my family. My mom believes that men "teach" women sexual desire, and women do not have natural sexual impulses outside of marriage. So, yes, some people do not have multiple sexual partners. Some people have very little innate interest in sex.

I was a sexual being from the time I was about 8 years old or so. No one messed with me. I just *was.* that's probably more normal, but not the reality of all people

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Because of STDs, I'm not sure that we're meant to fool around.  Do non-humans have STDs that they pass around?

"STDs in animals and humans have a historical relationship. "Two or three of the major STDs have come from animals," says Alonso Aguirre, a veterinarian and vice president for conservation medicine at Wildlife Trust. "We know, for example, that gonorrhea came from cattle to humans. Syphilis also came to humans from cattle or sheep many centuries ago, possibly sexually." The most recent, as well as the deadliest, STD to migrate to humans is HIV, which hunters acquired from the blood of chimpanzees, says Aguirre. The disease became transmissible from one person to another through semen and other bodily fluids after it had spread to the human population."

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/09 … s-get-stds

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Sounds like he wants women to accept that he's going to fuck other women and that they should be ok with it and have dinner ready when he gets home.

Not sure how you got that idea.
Did you watch his TED talk or are you just making assumptions ?

Firstly he is talking about per-agrarian tribes/cultures. He is not talking about what he , personally wants to do.
He does not once specify that promiscuity was/is strictly limited to men.
In order to demonstrate his theory, he gives an example of a South American tribe where a female will have sex with many males.
He gives another example of a tribe in Southern China, where all the members, male and female, are promiscuous.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Because of STDs, I'm not sure that we're meant to fool around.  Do non-humans have STDs that they pass around?

Rabbits get STDs and they have flourished regardless.

Koryn wrote:
My mother has only ever been with my father. She lost her virginity to him on their wedding night, and has never been with another person, and swears that if their marriage ever ended, she'd do the "right" thing, and never be with another man. This is common for women in my family. My mom believes that men "teach" women sexual desire, and women do not have natural sexual impulses outside of marriage. So, yes, some people do not have multiple sexual partners. Some people have very little innate interest in sex.

Bless her heart.

I think my parents have been committed and devoted to each other all their lives too. My mother met my father when she was 15. We celebrated her 81st birthday last Sunday. My father is 84. They still smooch in the kitchen.

Koryn wrote:
I was a sexual being from the time I was about 8 years old or so. No one messed with me. I just *was.* that's probably more normal, but not the reality of all people

Bless your heart too

8 is pretty young for sexual awakening. My first sexual girlfriend was when I was 15. She was 18. Sweet memories.

JadeDRed wrote:
Why are we talking like monogamy is and has been the cultural norm for a long while. For women maybe, but men having mistresses, etc has been accepted in society throughout history, and other countries have their own norms. People by and large aren't monogamous and the attitudes towards it have fluctuated considerably.

Yes. And polyandry is still practiced in some ethnic groups in the Himalayas of Nepal.
"Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced among Tibetans in Nepal, parts of China and part of northern India, in which two or more brothers are married to the same wife, with the wife having equal 'sexual access' to them. It is most common in egalitarian societies marked by high male mortality or male absenteeism. It is associated with partible paternity, the cultural belief that a child can have more than one father."

Click Hamilton wrote:
8 is pretty young for sexual awakening. My first sexual girlfriend was when I was 15. She was 18. Sweet memories.

I think with girls we are taught that our "urges" are not sexual but romantic, but in reality that is where they stem from. That's why girls are crying over boybands, because they have hormones and desires they don't understand, but we say those are crushes, that's affection. But when a boy starts "admiring" swimsuit models we think they are developing sexual desires for women. I imagine they are the exact same thing but girls aren't allowed to express overt sexuality so young, they aren't even told that's what it is (and maybe that isn't what it is, but even as a fairly late bloomer sexually, I would say those crushes and what have you are immature sexual desires, since they aren't seen as such in girls they aren't identified as such, so girls aren't considered to have them so they aren't seen as such....)

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Because of STDs, I'm not sure that we're meant to fool around.  Do non-humans have STDs that they pass around?

Of course they do. They also pass all sorts of other shit just like we do. STDs are no different than any other illness, the ONLY defining factor is how they're passed, and the only reason that means anything to us is because of the stigma we've created around having more than one sexual partner.


There's no stigma around me having the flu and accidentally passing it to everyone in my household, I wasn't immoral for it. Everybody is equally as or oftentimes more miserable than if they had an std, and I feel bad that I accidentally shared my sickness with everyone. If I share my bronchitis that I didnt yet know I was infected with, with my partner while we're making out before we have sex, does that make bronchitis an STD? STDS aren't "sex diseases", they're infections you get usually but not always while having sex. You can contract many STDs without having to have sex with someone, you just have to be exposed to infected tissue or mucous, or born to someone who has an infection while they're pregnant. You can pass a whole host of other things to people while having sex, that are not called STDs, even though you got them the same exact way.

JadeDRed wrote:
Rabbits get STDs and they have flourished regardless.

Sexy time.

Click Hamilton wrote:

Koryn wrote:
My mother has only ever been with my father. She lost her virginity to him on their wedding night, and has never been with another person, and swears that if their marriage ever ended, she'd do the "right" thing, and never be with another man. This is common for women in my family. My mom believes that men "teach" women sexual desire, and women do not have natural sexual impulses outside of marriage. So, yes, some people do not have multiple sexual partners. Some people have very little innate interest in sex.

Bless her heart.

I think my parents have been committed and devoted to each other all their lives too. My mother met my father when she was 15. We celebrated her 81st birthday last Sunday. My father is 84. They still smooch in the kitchen.


Bless your heart too

8 is pretty young for sexual awakening. My first sexual girlfriend was when I was 15. She was 18. Sweet memories.

It's not really. It might be young to actually *remember* feeling or thinking something sexual, but all the way back to toddler ages people are sexual and perform what we would normally consider to be sexual acts (masturbation, examining their own and each other's bodies, etc) as well as trying to understand how that relates to family (playing house, playing with dolls and calling them their own children, asking where they/babies come from, etc)

Laura UnBound wrote:
me having the flu

Oh. you've been a naughty, naughty girl.

Click Hamilton wrote:

Koryn wrote:
My mother has only ever been with my father. She lost her virginity to him on their wedding night, and has never been with another person, and swears that if their marriage ever ended, she'd do the "right" thing, and never be with another man. This is common for women in my family. My mom believes that men "teach" women sexual desire, and women do not have natural sexual impulses outside of marriage. So, yes, some people do not have multiple sexual partners. Some people have very little innate interest in sex.

Bless her heart.

I think my parents have been committed and devoted to each other all their lives too. My mother met my father when she was 15. We celebrated her 81st birthday last Sunday. My father is 84. They still smooch in the kitchen.


Bless your heart too

8 is pretty young for sexual awakening. My first sexual girlfriend was when I was 15. She was 18. Sweet memories.

My parents were with each other only also.  It was just part of the culture back then.
I do believe that our current morals seem to sometimes go against our biological predispositions.

I was propositioned when I was 12.  I never followed through.  I think I sealed my fate back then.

JJMiller wrote:
It all comes down to ball size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamou … in_animals

"In species with promiscuous mating systems, where many males mate with many females, the testes tend to be relatively large."

Awesome.

Well that's my next research project sorted.

Laura UnBound wrote:
It's not really. It might be young to actually *remember* feeling or thinking something sexual, but all the way back to toddler ages people are sexual and perform what we would normally consider to be sexual acts (masturbation, examining their own and each other's bodies, etc) as well as trying to understand how that relates to family (playing house, playing with dolls and calling them their own children, asking where they/babies come from, etc)

Isn't sexual awakening typically defined by puberty?

Bobby C wrote:
Sexy time.

Haha.

This can go so many directions

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I'm strictly monogamous, and always have been. I can't imagine it changing. I find the idea of sex with someone other than my significant other gross. I don't think it's gross if other people do it, though.

Meaning with only one person?

Or only one person at a time?

The second was more or less my meaning of people having multiple sexual partners during their lives as their lives evolve.

Like having 6 BF/GF's before being married 4 times, etc. In that case, the idea of marriage becomes less significant to me.

Maybe that's what Laura means by serial monogamy.