RE: Naturally It's Poly (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

DemonKia -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 2:01:36 AM)

From my end, I'd prefer to leave aside 'purpose' & stick to the parameters I'm interested in. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by your use of purpose, nor how it applies to my idea, & I might have to think awhile about it, if you care to explain your thinking further . . . . .

& for the purpose of the biological phenom I'm discussing I simply use the rough definition that sexual activity that is not reproductive is recreational. For modern humans this would be every time contraceptive techniques are employed to avoid reproduction (condoms, 'the pill' & related chemicals, sterilization, knowledge of the particular woman's fertility status, etc) or non-reproductive sexual activities such as oral sex, masturbation, anal sex, & etc . .. ..

For instance, it seems pretty clear that most BDSM sexual activities are purely recreational & never intended to be reproductive at all. An evening of bondage, flogging, & oral & / or anal sex is not meant to lead to babies, & is thus purely recreational sexual activity . . . . .

Contrarily, if we think about the shape of non-primate mammalian sexuality, males only approach females for sexual activity during estrus ('heat'). The female is impregnated within several cycles of estrus, at most. Chances are excellent that fertilization in the first cycle will result in pregnancy. The males will not attempt copulation with that female again until her next estrus, after the birth & later weaning of the young. Repeat throughout the lifespan of any given female. Nothing I'd construe as sexual activity without intention to reproduce in there.

I became interested in thinking of these issues I've described out of the frequent religious discussions about reproductive sex as good versus recreational sex as bad, such as Catholicism regularly indulges, so I don't think I'm being particular innovative in my use of the terminology . . . . . Nor is the biological phenom I interpret & describe particularly wild or out there.

(Given all of that, if anyone of you brainiacs (meant most sincerely, thank you for noticing) out there know of any non-primate species that engage in sexual activities outside of penile-vaginal coitus, please, bring them to my attention . . . . & I'm specifically not referring to those pre-coital mating behaviors that are part of getting the female receptive to the immediate fertilization opportunity, I'm speaking of sexual activities that take the place of reproductive sexual acts . . . . . . )

quote:

ORIGINAL: couldbemage

I think you have a different definition of recreational than me.

I'd say that only humans (possibly chimps or dolphins) really do anything on purpose. Therefore everything animals do is recreational.



RCdc -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 2:24:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia
(Given all of that, if anyone of you brainiacs (meant most sincerely, thank you for noticing) out there know of any non-primate species that engage in sexual activities outside of penile-vaginal coitus, please, bring them to my attention . . . . & I'm specifically not referring to those pre-coital mating behaviors that are part of getting the female receptive to the immediate fertilization opportunity, I'm speaking of sexual activities that take the place of reproductive sexual acts . . . . . . )


Birds.  Penguins are always a good example.  Giraffes.  Many sea mammals.
 
the.dark.



ranja -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 2:44:09 AM)

My dog licks his own dick...does that count?



DemonKia -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 3:41:32 AM)

I'm guessing that the giraffes was this:

Another function of necking is sexual, in which two males caress and court each other, leading up to mounting and climax. Such interactions between males are more frequent than heterosexual coupling.[21] In one study, up to 94% of observed mounting incidents took place between two males. The proportion of same sex activities varied between 30 and 75%, and at any given time one in twenty males were engaged in non-combative necking behaviour with another male. Only 1% of same-sex mounting incidents occurred between females.[22]

Birds is a good one, tho' it's almost exclusively genital-to-genital activity (duct to duct rubbing), I'd be fascinated to see something about oral sex in birds. & I didn't turn up the specific whatever you meant with penguins, would you be so kind as elucidate.

& by sea mammals are we talking cetaceans, sure, that's another grouping that does seem to engage in recreational sexuality. I don't think that's so much the case with the pinnipeds, I couldn't turn up any obvious suspects in a quickie wiki look . . .. .

Lots of frottage-like activities with most of these. I'm wondering if anyone knows of any oral, anal, or masturbatory sex to climax in non-primates. (& the chimps are big on the frottage kinds of stuff, I'm not entirely clear what other activities they engage in . . . . .)

So. We've got one class (birds), & a handful of mammalian species. All vertabrates, all social critters. & the recreational sexual activity definitely seems to be an expression of social interaction. That giraffe example strikes me as a rather extreme example of 'male bonding' . . .. . . ..

Versus the rest. Reptiles. Fish. Amphibians. Invertebrates, which would number the majority of species. Not a heck of a lot of ability to engage in anything that would approximate the sex-for-pure-pleasure alone thing that I think is actually something special about humans. (I know it's currently not polite or vogue or something to think that we humans are anything special, eh, well .. . . . ) Huge swathes of those species engage in sexual reproduction but without anything resembling coitus, doing things like exchanging sperm packets, or laying eggs & leaving them to be fertilized separately by a male . . . . . & there is a chunk of lower order critters that engage in asexual or non-sexual reproduction, such as amoebas splitting, or plants' ability to essentially clone the host plant thru broken off bits taking root . . . . . .

& then we get into ratios, how much reproductive versus recreational we're talking about. Going back to that wiki above about the giraffes we have this:

Such interactions between males are more frequent than heterosexual coupling.[21] In one study, up to 94% of observed mounting incidents took place between two males.

So that's a roughly 1:17 ratio of reproductive sex to recreational sex. By way of comparison, the average modern human female in an industrial country will have somewhere on the order of 2 births over her lifespan (we'll coin a concept called one's sexual lifespan, which we'll arbitrarily call 18 to 78, just cuz -- 60 years of potential sexual activity) . . . . Further we'll use some common numbers to establish some parameters. Average of sexual activity of anywhere from once a week to once a day, to be both kinda conservative in estimation & to get some varied curves going on to see the bigger picture.

*whips out calculator, thankfully opts to do calcs offscreen*

1X week: 2 in 3120 sexual acts are reproductive; 2X week: 2 in 6240 sexual acts are reproductive; 3X week: 9360 sexual acts are reproductive . . . . . (Huh, I'd never actually cranked out a set of numbers, I just had a feel for how the numbers would go.) If we go with one sexual act per day, we get: 2 in 21,900 sexual acts are reproductive . . . . .

& since I'm gonna call masturbation a sexual activity (& a heavily recreational one) for the purposes of this distinction between recreational & reproductive, I think the above frame of numbers is not too terribly inaccurate . . . . . . .

Them's some pretty impressive stats . . . .. . I'd be interested in seeing some estimations of the ratio of recreational to reproductive activities in other primates, birds, or the cetaceans . . . . . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia
(Given all of that, if anyone of you brainiacs (meant most sincerely, thank you for noticing) out there know of any non-primate species that engage in sexual activities outside of penile-vaginal coitus, please, bring them to my attention . . . . & I'm specifically not referring to those pre-coital mating behaviors that are part of getting the female receptive to the immediate fertilization opportunity, I'm speaking of sexual activities that take the place of reproductive sexual acts . . . . . . )


Birds. Penguins are always a good example. Giraffes. Many sea mammals.

the.dark.



DemonKia -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 3:49:57 AM)

That introduces the complexity of domestication of wild animals into the discussion of 'natural' or 'biologically determined' behaviors. More of that idea that discussing biology gets very complicated very quickly.

It has been my observation that domesticated animals (particularly dogs) engage in what could be described as self-stimulating sexual activities, but I've also had explained to me that some of what I've observed has had to do with the animal in question have abandonment issues due to being weaned too early, & that such is a relatively common phenom. Which to my mind makes such behaviors problematic to include in thinking about 'natural' or 'wild' behaviors uninfluenced by the 'artificial' stimulus of domestication . . . . . .

Field observations of such behaviors in wolves or coyotes would seem to be more relevant, & again would fit into that notion that recreational sexual activity is related to relatively social vertebrates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ranja

My dog licks his own dick...does that count?




RCdc -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 8:35:00 AM)

I cannot remember where I read it, but I distinctly remember a 9/10 ratio of male/male giraffe pairage(sp?) observed.  Try Joan Roughgarden articles and books.
 
Try this book if you haven't already Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.
 
If you google penguin news something should come up.  There have been observations of male same sex pairings in various zoos, even with females present.  The most recent I posted a topic about in off topic because they raised chicks together, but the male pairing and caressing of penguins has been observed before that.
 
the.dark.



Danibelle -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 9:19:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

I cannot remember where I read it, but I distinctly remember a 9/10 ratio of male/male giraffe pairage(sp?) observed.  Try Joan Roughgarden articles and books.
 
Try this book if you haven't already Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.
 
If you google penguin news something should come up.  There have been observations of male same sex pairings in various zoos, even with females present.  The most recent I posted a topic about in off topic because they raised chicks together, but the male pairing and caressing of penguins has been observed before that.
 
the.dark.


I'd like to comment on this before moving on to my views on the OP.

There is a GREAT book for children called And Tango Makes Three about a same sex pairing between penguins in the Central Park Zoo in NYC.  It's great for any same sex couple to explain their relationship to their children in an easy to understand story about cute little penguins.  In this particular case of penguins there is some important information to have.  The two penguins had no desire to engage with penguins of the opposite sex BUT there were more males than females in their exhibit.  Male penguins (of this particular species) have an active role in parenting due to the environmental conditions of their natural habitat.  The action of nesting is part of their instincts.  A zookeeper gave them an extra egg as an experiment after another penguin laid two.  Great story for kids and adults alike.

On to the OP-

I think there has been a necessity for poly in the past.  With higher infant mortality rates and the dangers of childbirth in general, women HAD to raise children together and men HAD to mate with more than one woman to ensure the survival of their tribes.  It's not that poly was natural to them, it's that they did what they had to survive the next generation and it BECAME natural.

There have also been ancient cultures where one woman took several husbands.  This happened mostly in warrior based societies where women, despite the dangers of childbirth, drastically outlived their male mates.

In several cultures, when a husband or wife died, it was perfectly natural for their sibling to step in and remarry the widowed spouse.  This was done, when available, to "keep it in the family."  Property laws played an important part in these decisions.

In societies where women do not have the same rights that men have, they are forced into marriage.  I'm not saying that every single one of these women was forced into a marriage to a man she didn't want to marry, simply that society forced marriage as the only option.

An overwhelming amount of the people on this board live in free societies where women have rights and do not have to marry.  We live where it is not unlawful to engage with more than one person or with members of the same sex.  This leaves us the freedom to choose who and what we want.  Since every single one of us is different, it makes sense that NATURALLY all our relationships would differ as well.



Leonidas -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 9:32:58 AM)

I've already written a lot about this, so I'll only say a little.

You don't need a text book to observe human nature, just look around you.

Our rational minds aren't nearly as "in charge" as we think they are.  The more primitive parts of us can be repressed and denied, but not really "switched off", and often, not even fully or permanently repressed or denied.

Because of the second premise above, you don't have to look far to see spectacular failures of our social and ethical models that entail people saying that they think and believe one thing, and then doing something very different.  It goes on way too often to be chalked up to personal preference or simple "deviant" behavior.

I believe that we will be healthier and happier as a species when we put aside ancient superstitions that were ever only intended to perpetuate social control, and develop ethical and social models that are more in line with our natural, innate drives as men and women.  Whether we are congruent and "true to ourselves" in the formulation of our ethics and social behavior is more important than who we fuck, and how that impacts our living arrangements.



Esinn -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 9:37:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: allthatjaz

Arab man for example can marry more than one woman providing he can provide equally for each wife but most wealthy Arabs that could well afford a second or even third wife (in modern society) tend to stick with just the one (providing she can give him children.) But then go out to the Arabic nomadic tribes (the hunter gatherers) and you will find that most of the men will have more than one wife. Go to the African bush tribes and again you will find poly households.





Do not get me wrong - I adore chicks with big swords, but you are wrong.

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=kLCR9zGH774C&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=arab+men+polygamy&source=bl&ots=TTURM3RtDR&sig=8EMPG4nMnOlfLdlNfgWySjXVFQ4&hl=en

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/968873.html

It seems every Muslim nation contains many poly families.  In fact after a few hours of searching it seems well over 70%, that is a guess out my ass.  It is more than 1/2 though.  Non-Muslim Arab nations do not outlaw poly but it is more difficult to find.

Poly is frowned upon in Muslim nations because many of the marriages are forced and women are abused.

So, if you do research keep in mind many people who write about Arab Poly men are not supportive of Poly.  This is because Arab men abuse women and Poly is forced so multiple women are abused. From what little I have read I believe this male superiority attitude would impact monogamous relationships as well.

http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/womenchildabuse/index.htm

Arab men are NOT  a good example here for anti-pro poly.  Their culture simply has degraded women for longer than most can remember and for too long it has been over looked.





Esinn -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 10:03:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ranja

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn


I can sincerely I have personally been more inclined to seek out and establish monogamous relationships - all but the current one have failed, will this one?



serial monogamy might be most humans 'normal' behaviour then?


No, either I was not clear or you did not read my previous posts.  The anti-poly movement in the USA  is what I believe responsible for me feeling this way and possibly that comment.  Before a lot were born Poly has been illegal in this country without any real justification.  The image we are taught as children is not one of Poly.  The overall perception of poly is often negative.

Us humans are animals.  I think we can all agree on that?

If you take an animal and remove it from it's natural environment(society/culture) at birth and raise it you can still expect it to act in a specific was under many circumstances.

If we remove a human from their natural environment M/F it would be inclined to pursue poly relationships.

I just thought it was something interesting for everyone to consider - the reason relationships fail at a rate of 50% or greater might be due to the fact this culture/society 'forces'  us into monogamous relationships.  There is also research to suggest I am correct. Just keep it tucked away somewhere in the back of your mind.  Thanks all for considering [;)]



SteelofUtah -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 11:00:58 AM)

Fast Reply I admit I have not read the entire thread.

The discussion on if people are Genetically geared toward ANYTHING when using the Animal Kingdom will always result in Chaos. Forgive me if I am repeating what someone has already said but due to mans ability to REASON and Think things out in their mind before carying out said plan makes Human a very DIFFERENT kind of Mammal.

You cannot use the Animal Kingdom to compare and contrast Man because the smallest difference between us... Our Brain, makes us miles apart by any form of comparison other then random habits that I believe are learned by man from witnessing animals and we have simply carried on this Training as we taught our young. Over the undetermined amount of time Man as we have understood him has been on this planet there has been no other species that has evolved quite like Humans and to that degree there have been no other sides of animals of any kind showing the kind of evolution that man will continue to go thorugh.

Because of this it is IMPOSSIBLE to Prove or even Create a Theroy as to the Basic Nature of Man because our ability to reason and decide and choose is what sets us so FAR apart from the comparable pool.

I am Poly for many reasons I am able to reason that I have the capasity for love for many at the same time. I can reason that a Hierarchy of Love serves no purpose as it only leaves you having to choose eventually who you love more, to choose that you simply LOVE allows you to do as you please without having to limit ones self. It is this reasoning that allows me to NOT be a jealous man, it is this reasoning that allows me to NOT be Monogamous even though that was the Archetype for my Growing up. One Man One Woman and NO CHEATING. Now it could be reasoned that because my mother cheated on my father and it became common knowledge that I was predetermined to be sexually promiscious which would be a falacy as I am NOT sexually Promiscious I am PolyAmorous and Believe in Poly Fidelity. I believe that CHEATING is wrong and I believe that Cheating is an Act of Deception.

However My Being Poly has nothing to do with the Human Condition it has to do with my ability to Reason for my own life. Poly simply makes more sence for me. I like girls who like girls and since I do not have a Va-Jay-Jay I am ill-equipt to satisfy the needs of those whom it would appear that I am mostly attracted too. Because of this and my desire to not cheat or tollerate cheating as well as my desire not to rick infection and disease a Poly Fidelity Relationship just makes the most amount of sence it is all about REASON not Genetics.

Steel



edana -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 11:30:58 AM)

Edit:  If it wasn't obvious, this was posted by Leonidas without realizing that his girl was logged in last.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah

I am NOT sexually Promiscious ... I believe that CHEATING is wrong and I believe that Cheating is an Act of Deception.


I strongly suspect that Mark Sanford, Elliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Robert Allen, Daniel Dean Thompson, Louis Beres, Ted Haggard, wow, the list goes on and on, and those are just a few of the ones that I can think of offhand, would have posted the very same here, given the chance.  And you know what?  I'm sure most of them would have meant it every bit as much as you do.  What people believe, and think, no matter how genuinely they believe it, isn't always running the show.

quote:

However My Being Poly has nothing to do with the Human Condition it has to do with my ability to Reason for my own life. Poly simply makes more sence for me. I like girls who like girls and since I do not have a Va-Jay-Jay I am ill-equipt to satisfy the needs of those whom it would appear that I am mostly attracted too. Because of this and my desire to not cheat or tollerate cheating as well as my desire not to rick infection and disease a Poly Fidelity Relationship just makes the most amount of sence it is all about REASON not Genetics.


Sorry bud, REASON isn't always, or even usually in charge when it comes to matters like this.  All of the men that I named and shamed above (and millions more that just don't make the papers) had a lot more to lose than you do, and RATIONALLY, using their REASON I"m sure they knew they were fucking up.  They fucked up anyway.  If you eventually do the same, I'm sure we won't be hearing about it here.

Actually, your "poly fidelity" family is pretty damn close to the kind of arrangement that an evolutionary biologist might predict for humans that were unchained from judeo-chrisitan tradition.  Sorry to tell you this, but your REASON pushed you pretty close to your ANIMAL roots.  Including your suspicion with respect to outsiders and your fears about dangers that they might pose to the clan. 

The most dangerous lies are those which we tell ourselves.



SteelofUtah -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 1:07:07 PM)

Leonidas,

I appreciate your comments and where I would like to state first that I agree in essence with what you have said you seem to have missed much of my point.

Engaging in this type of a relationship is an ACTIVE choice I make. I am able to Reason and deduce the best possible solution in which I receive the most amount of support as well as the best possible path for success. That in itself in a Primal Act Yes I agree. However I am able to play out multiple senarios of possible outcomes and work toward the best one this is what sets me apart from my Animal Cousins.

Mind you, I also see that you have your mind made up in this respect. Should I deny your theroy I am simply lying to myself and should I agree completely my original statement becomes words simply strung along for comprehension. So I Digress, it is Obvious that you see it as an Animalistic drive that is predetermined, I would then understand why the Gorean Philosophy is so appealing to you, However Natural Order does not always apply to man. The Weak Often Survive and the Strong will at times find themselves at the mercy of the meak.

The Truth of the matter is Drive and my desire to have what it is that I want is all I will agree to when it comes to the Animalistic Relations between Man & Beast. The Brain is what determins those drives. In Animals it is about Mating and Power and Dominance and so I am sure considering where this is being posted some people might be going "Yeah... And?" But you have to see the OTHER side of things. Those who choose NOT to have what it is that I WANT. Those who CHOOSE to be Monogamous, Those who CHOOSE to be Abstanant and in some regard till death. The have reasoned much as I have what they want and it is driven with a different desire and different drive.

When Discussing the difference and simularities between Man and Beast it is important to denote WHICH Beasts we are Comparing. Monkeys? Wolves? Heina? Kangaroo? Beaver? Owls? Hawks? Penguins? Fox? Then WHICH Sub-Species of which Beast?

Are thier Alpha Males who are driven by the Primal and Only the Primal? ABSOLUTELY!! However I am not one of them. Am I the Exception or are they? If you take into account the current nature of family and relationships and Marriage and the CONCEPT of those relationships it should be understood that Polyamory as in the HIGH Minority. Just Above Polygamy and Same Sex Marriage. Monogamy is the Global Standard Today and if the theroy that Polyamory is a more easily accepted and more biological and Genetic then why do you not see the genetic trend as you do in other socital biological actions? Why in remote african tribes that have little contact with the outside world do you see monogamy practiced more than polyamory? Why in those tribe is the natural order to single bond pair?

Mind you all the above is being said by someone who practices Poly Fidelity as a live choice and I understand that it is not common, I also do not believe that it is wrong. But I also do not believe that I am genetically programmed or biased toward this way of life because it was an active decision that I made, and remember making, and remember the challanges that came about and how easy it would have been to let it go but REASON managed to always prevail as to WHY I do what I do.

Steel



ranja -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 1:14:33 PM)

Sir Esinn... i do not know anything about the anti-poly movement in the USA but why would they be responsible for you feeling any particular way... you are a Dominant adult surely you can make up your own mind about what you want and how you feel about that.

I was not aware that poly was illegal... many people seem to be able to live a poly lifestyle without being prosecuted especially in the morally corrupt west... of course you can not legally marry more than one person but i think that does not need to be an obstacle to a poly life-style neccesary... and if people could just get married unlimited it would all just become such a mess it would be a nightmare.

The reason poly does not seem natural to me is because jealousy is such a problem... if there was no jealousy then poly should be fine... it is the jealousy that fucks it all up for so many people. I do not see how removing a human from its natural environment would take care of the jealousy or whoever even tried this out... how many humans were taken out of their environment and then where did they put them... the big brother house?




Leonidas -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 1:55:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah


Mind you all the above is being said by someone who practices Poly Fidelity as a live choice and I understand that it is not common, I also do not believe that it is wrong. But I also do not believe that I am genetically programmed or biased toward this way of life because it was an active decision that I made, and remember making, and remember the challanges that came about and how easy it would have been to let it go but REASON managed to always prevail as to WHY I do what I do.



What I was trying to point out to you is that your REASON will prevail as long as it's reasonably well aligned with your more primal drives.  If it isn't, it's a puppy in a dog fight, and it's going to lose.  Was it REASON (a truly rational analysis of all of the different alternatives) that drove you to the choices you made, or was it RATIONALIZATION (starting with what you desired at the primal level, and then talking yourself into it)?  If you really think you know, I think you might be rationalizing even more, but who can say for sure.

It's not really possible to treat all men as if they are clones, either.  Yes, some men might be inclined to monogamy or polygyny.  At the other extreme, some might be inclined completely toward opportunistic sex and shun the notion trying to keep sexual control of one or more women altogether.  Yet others might be interested in both, to greater or lesser degress.  These are passions that live in us as handed down, and yes, we aren't all exact carbon copies of a single blueprint.

If you're interested in this kind of stuff, one of the things that I'd recommend is that you look into how the brain actually works.  Some of the basic urges that folks have come from an older, more primative part than the problem solving and reasoning part.  Your brain isn't really a single, homogenous organ.

May the choices that you've made serve you and yours well, however you came to them or think about them.



DavanKael -> RE: Naturally It's Poly (7/27/2009 1:59:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas
May the choices that you've made serve you and yours well, however you came to them or think about them.


Wow.  :>  That really kinda says it all. 
  Davan



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875