Let's talk about sex!

Well knowing humans and our past exploits sexual and any other, I would have to think that most of those unfortunate cave woman were forced and raped to have sex. Cave men were barbaric people ( notice any relations? ) and they were quite stout with an undeveloped language so a couple of grunts and a knock over the head would have probably been enough to get some pootie tang.

Although not every caveman was like this.

But eh, look at it this way. If it wasn't for raping and pillaging(sp?) alot of us wouldn't be here

 

This is the science and nature forum, theres another section for sex. Get it right.

 

I feel like this post belongs here. It does concern science and nature. Yea go post it in the sex section right underneath which size penis you got and i lost my virginity last night.

NOT. Get it right fool

I believe humans just did it like crazy monkeys.

 

I imagine monkeys only have crazy sex when there is monkey wars concerning sex.

Otherwise I imagine to monkey people meet up because they have a purpose.

 

ever seen dogs do it? bitches normally dont care when the male dogs hump them....but every once in a while you get the bitch that bites back.

i would think thats how it was in caveman days

 

I bet rape was just as much a factor back then as it is today. I don't think you can consider a monkey forcing himself on another monkey rape, considering they don't have rights. They are animals, they can't understand or act within a system of rights. I mean, most people aren't rapists. Not because of the law, but because raping people is wrong. It hurts most of us to see that kind of thing happen, let alone actually doing it. I believe that is a byproduct of the modern human brain, not social development.

However, the polygamy thing? I think it was when we stopped living in nomadic, hunter gatherer tribes that polygamy died down. After the agricultural revolution, when organized government, organized religion, and 'civilized society' were brought about, social structuring started to happen. Once we realize we could control the others around us, we sought to seek the most happiness for the most people. Polygamy does not serve that purpose at all. Females want alpha males. Beta males are the majority by far. If it were socially acceptable for alpha males to have many women, the beta males would have few or none. This does not fit the general purpose of organized religion or government, which, historically speaking, is to control people to the advantage of beta males.

And that is what I have to say about this here situation...

 

Are we talking about early Homo sapien here?

Cave man really can refer to close relatives like the Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis.


If we're talking about early Homo sapien, then I don't think there's too much difference between what they found attractive and what we do. There's a reason we evolved to look the way we do. Men like wider hips, smaller waist, larger breasts attractive, and youth. Women liked larger muscles, broader shoulders, and "alpha" status. We both like symmetrical features, clear skin, and clean teeth attractive as well.

In terms of mating rituals? Women display their youthfulness (i.e. better at making healthy babies) while men display their ability to provide (i.e. babies more likely to survive). Maybe instead of the nicest car, he had the best blade or the biggest kill.

Studies have found that the primitive Homo sapien probably didn't follow monogamy a whole lot. Most people lived in small tribes and with high reproductive costs (it takes a human about 12 years to reach sexual maturity), limiting yourself to one reproductive partner for your whole life (and thereby limiting the possible genetic combinations) wasn't in the tribe's best interest.

Monogamy is more accepted in recent history because of religious conditioning -- which didn't even start emergin until maybe 150,000 years ago. If you look at a lot of the more "tribal" groups of humans today, some of them have very different sexual practices and definitions than the modern world. One African tribe completely separates men and women. Heterosexual intercourse is only done for reproduction. Male-male practices are a rite of passage. Female-female practices are not thought of as sexual at all and more a platonic pleasure (think massages and spa treatments).

Also, primitive man thoroughly enjoyed sex like we do today. Most of today's psychologists and sociologists believe that sexual drive develops as a conditioning. We, generally, base our sexual desires off of what is socially acceptable. There are sexual deviants, but most of them are still within a normal range or have a niche culture surrounding them. Only the really crazy people have sexual appetites WAY outside the norm (think bestiality or necrophilia). Archeologists have found stone dildos and, more recently, contraceptive methods dating back to Egyptian times.


So, that's about all I know off the top of my head about sex and primitive man. Cheers!


*** ETA: Love wasn't really a consideration in a marriage until the 1800s. You can see this in, say, Jane Austen's emergence of romantic literature. Sure, people felt it, romanticized about it, desired the feeling, but marriage was a business arrangement, pure and simple. Affection was the icing on the cake rather than the goal of a relationship. I don't really know what changed it for sure (maybe the growing availability of real contraceptive methods or ideas in civil rights?), but the mindset started changing and it's stuck ever since.

 

The motivation is a lot different today in the modern world. Babies are more likely to survive even if they end up being orphaned or something. The reason marriage is no longer a business arrangement is because it no longer needs to be a business arrangement.

Alongside the fact that infant and child mortality rates are low relative to then, women have the ability to sustain themselves (and their children). You would have never seen a women supporting herself before the 1800s. They may have been farm hands or house wives, but the men made the money and owned the property. That is a pretty big difference.

 

Where's that from? That's the third time I've seen you post that.
​

 

Probably Some type of communication.

Someone probably already said that but "communication is key"

 

it probably all came down to who was the alpha male/s out of the group they were the ones who got it in and the rest just were sexless unless they were lucky

 

That's mostly true. I still believe that marriage is, in part, a business arrangement since you take on each other's finances.

The real question I have is why it no longer became a business arrangement? You said something about the changing roles of women in society, but most women suffrage movements didn't succeed in the Western world until the early 1900s.

I don't believe the "health" revolution in terms of human immunization and rigid sterilization techniques began until the early 1900s too. Look at Louis Pasteur -- he really was the forefront of human immunization and most of his experiments weren't until the 1880s.

It looks like the rise in romantic love and marriages came about as a counter to the highly rational Enlightenment period and the concurrent Industrialization. The Romantic Era ideas seemed to permeate ever aspect of culture. Think of the lasting ideas of the 1960s and how they were catalyzed by scientific discoveries (e.g. birth control). I'm guessing for the Romantic Era, technologies of expansion and ideas of equal opportunity catalyzed the reaction here in the States.


In terms of human sex, culture has a much stronger say in our practices than the days of primitive man. We have highly complex social structures based on thousands of years of history, divergent philosophy, and technological advances. Primitive man had similar social communications, but much more simple in comparison to today's societies. Although the waypoints and destination are the same, the roads we take to get there is the primary difference between prehistorical and modern sexual practices.