What to Make of polygamy?

How much is our experience and ideas about gender and sexuality, here in modern Western culture, relevant at all to stone age cultures? There is a biological imperative to have sex that goes across times and culture... all humans are pushed by our natures to reproduce. But the idea that we can inject our modern ideas about gender equality and sexual freedom onto Stone Age cultures is ridiculous. This discussion says more about the mythology of Western cultures in 2015 then about any previous cultures.

I suspect that if you went back to the Stone Age (or any previous age) to discuss "No means No" or "Yes means Yes"... this is as relevant as trying to find an historical answer about whether Android is better than IPhone.

People are taking our own modern issues and injecting them onto earlier cultures. This just warps our view of history and reinforces our own culturally specific views of human nature. If you really hope to understand other cultures, you have to be open-minded. Other cultures are very different to ours in ways that we would find offensive (just as they would find our behavior offensive).

The temptation is to believe that our own modern culture is somehow superior than all other cultures... and that it somehow reflects some absolute truth that we can trace through the ages.

Every culture believes that they are superior to all other cultures. It is part of our mythology, in truth our culture is no different.

Why are you addressing me? I'm talking about primates and canines, not modern culture.

_______


and if you did mean to address me



my first post in this thread mentioned my hope that the researchers would be open-minded

Isn't the ultimate question underlying this discussion about how this relates to gender equality and sexual behavior in humans (including in our culture)? That is what interests me.

For me it is how men today are genetically coded, and whether the European Feminists ideal of turning us all into its, to have no gender norms and no separation between the humans with different genetalia, is achievable or desirable

The researchers note that this genetic bottleneck coincides with a cultural shift, I think their hypothesis is reasonable. I don't think the virus theory makes much sense... I have not heard of a virus that only affects men.

I also think that it is interesting that these theories get such a response. People go to great lengths, even illogical lengths, to counter these scientific findings which go against popular modern narratives about gender equality,

What about this theory... that the advent of agriculture might have changed the social structure in such a way to create an small, sexually advantaged class of powerful males.. is so difficult to accept given the scientific evidence? There are other examples of human males having sexual control over a number of females, this isn't something that never happens.

This doesn't say anything about modern society... we have our own sexual structures in place that work well for us yet are completely different than earlier societies.

You're not disagreeing with anyone here, max... I hope this is not a problem?

STD's, but that does not work either because the theory is that they were not having sex. Could the Earth have been flooded with cosmic radiation that made most men sterile but not the women? That seems far fetched too.

That is the theory right, that a very small number of men owned the villages, and all of the women there-in, while the rest of the men got nothing. This is how modern polygamist societies work, the men are run off by their late teens, to do as they want but they cant come back, and they cant have any of the women.

I suppose these "European Feminists" are the same people whom we Europeans like to call "American feminists"... That is to say, the most extreme feminists.

Another thing: we war constantly, and rape is very very often a tool of war.....shouldn't we expect that this period of lack of diversity in male DNA was caused by war? That women were property and that the winner takes all the women? This seems much more probable then the theory that 17 women would choose the same male by choice and that 16 males would get nothing.

War could have played a role, but don't underestimate the capacity of a dominant male to 1) attract female lust; and 2) scare off competition.

Think rock star groupies, harem, right of the first night...

17/1? Not reasonable in my opinion, women like sex too much to take a 1/17 share voluntarily. I think this had to be a condition that was imposed upon them.

Certainly, but it needs not be through war only. A harem is imposed. The "right of the first night" was imposed too.

then dont give me "rock star groupie".

War has a bunch of effects, not only does it creates powerful men and provide concubines, it also kills off men. All of these things could contribute the the 17 to 1 number.

Why not? Domination and desire can coexist. You of all people should know that.

Alright. Still, groupie love could have applied to domineering men in the neolithic. Not that it matters much, mind you...

You've been watching too many movies . That never existed .

1/17th of a winner or 100% of a loser?

the loser loses that one

power can be a potent stimulant