(untitled)

I sometimes question if the negative things about sex with friend, strangers and family always apply even if the context and type of sex is different. I think important to note that sex can be any physically alluring experience with another person. It doesn’t necessarily include penetrative intercourse. I think outercourse can be a sexual experience that’s more broad of a scope and often comparable to a hug; that would include the thrill that comes with even restricted sexual contact. Right now we find ourselves addicted to technology, etc. Why not reconnect with each other in a powerful way that is just as addictive?

>>30872 Please don't fuarrrk your cousin.

Sex with fren is best sex

There really isn't any negative side to safe, consensual sex between or among adults who are mature enough to handle it. Most people out here having sex are not emotionally mature enough to really handle it. Everybody is far too prudish about sex - even the people who seem to make their whole identity about it aren't actually having much sex.

>>30876 There isn't any negative side to anything for anyone who is mature enough to handle it.

>>30876 >>30872 IMO there’s two different ways to think about sex. You can think of it as meaningless pleasure (so long as it’s protected) which is the more modern view. The other way you can think about it as a more spiritual act which is very meaningful emotionally and spiritually. Religion aside the reason you might think of it in this sense is because it’s necessary and sufficient for creating children, something which is literally beyond your own self. So for OP, I think defining sex as any physically alluring experience is wrong because it can never reach the spiritual level of sex. Also I feel like it’s really not good for people because you either (naturally) grow very attached to the person or your so detached from your emotions that you do not get attached.

>>30872 If you redefine what {thing} means, you can obviously challenge a lot about general understanding of that {thing}. >Right now we find ourselves addicted to technology, etc. >Why not reconnect with each other in a powerful way that is just as addictive? I would argue that we are addicted to technology precisely because it serves us as proxy to other people. >>30876 >There really isn't any negative side to safe, consensual sex between or among adults who are mature enough to handle it. How do i know i am mature enough to handle it? How do i know the other person is mature enough to handle it? >Everybody is far too prudish about sex Could you elaborate? What is the right level of prudishness about sex?

>the negative things about sex with friend, strangers and family Which negative things? Be specific. The negative stigmas apply for reasons, and if those reasons are invalid, it's an irrational stigma. e.g. incest is most likely taboo because reproduction increases chances of inbreeding-related disorders in the child, or because of it often involving immaturity or power abuse/rape. Realistically, consentual recreational safe sex with a relative isn't inherently bad, although I never would as it's revolting to me. Sex with a stranger is more dangerous (unknown if they have infections, more difficult to judge character, pregnancy is a big issue, etc.) but if those are non-concerns then it's not inherently bad. Lainon did mention that sex creates bonds and those usually aren't going to be useful bonds between strangers. It's not just a hug, it is powerful and for good purpose. I respect people who abstain for that reason, but its not a concern for me.

Is OP an American? Americana are socially repressed as a culture. They have no right to talk down to Northern Europeans not smiling if Americans get weird about casual kissing, non-romantic touching and non-sexual nudity. Violence is more tolerated than mere female nudity. Them looking down on Islamic repression and thinking themselves much better is laughable. This isn't about prudishness, this is about missing powerful, fundamental human bonding experiences in impressionable stages in development. Normalized psychological damage and physical alienation. Isolationism and lack of community. The kind of soykaf that creates school shooters and sociopaths, feeling no positive bond to their surroundings. The sexualization of nudity was a mistake.

>>30884 >Lainon did mention that sex creates bonds and those usually aren't going to be useful bonds between strangers. Same with family. People who sexually bonded with family probably had trouble later re-bonding with partners who they could have babies with, thus ending the genetic line. >Sex with a stranger is more dangerous You also need to differentiate between male and female behavior. For men, fuarrrking as many different women as possible is the best evolutionary strategy since there is basically no limit on how many babies they can have this way. Women on the other hand can only make one baby every year or so, therefor it's much more important for them to pick a high quality partner with good genes and/or fathering abilities. So casual sex with strangers is far more advantageous for men which is reflected in culture and the types of porn they enjoy. Not that lain

>>30894 >For men, fuarrrking as many different women as possible is the best evolutionary strategy since there is basically no limit on how many babies they can have this way. I find this idea questionable at best. the amount of labor that goes into taking care of children requires a consensual effort by both partners. It isn't an easy task that can be done by the women alone. If men's evolutionary role was to propagate like that then children of single mothers wouldn't be messed up.

sex make baby all other sex is not sex is gay

>>30899 while I think this is somewhat true, the fact of the matter is that it almost defys possibility for a woman to have 40 children over the course of her life (and it will be obvious that she's doing so), but its far from inconcievable for a man to have this many over the course of a year without neccisarily alerting his wife and legitimate family. Not to mention that if he plays a good koo-koo bird (tut tut the bot doesn't like this word spelled right), all of his illegitimate children may be raised by married mothers.

>>30899 >If men's evolutionary role was to propagate like that then children of single mothers wouldn't be messed up. This doesn't follow. It takes effort from both partners to raise a baby well. But evolution does what works not what's best. As a strategy for propagating genes, the single mother approach works just fine. The scientific term for this is r-selected breeding (as opposed to k-selected). >I find this idea questionable at best. Feel free to post your own theory based on the research you've done.

>>30903 this is basically calling poor a strategy cause poor people exist. If you are keen on research you should know the stats universally showi single parent kids having more issues.

>>30899 He's saying it's a valid evolutionary strategy. Think back on history and how often conqueror's raped women. These men weren't searching for a partner to raise a child but merely to quench a desire, and hence pass on their genes. If it wasn't valid it would cease to happen within several generations and that hasn't been the case. With that said, I wouldn't say it's a great strategy by any means. That's also why it's so looked down upon socially and most men want to be in their child's life because they know they will do better without them. >>30904 Not him but that's exactly right...if it wasn't a strategy it wouldn't exist. Nature doesn't leave much excess. And what most people forget, we are a part of nature not separate from her. and contrary to whatever ideology, emotion, or logic she operates without any regard from you.

>>30912 >If it wasn't valid it would cease to happen within several generations and that hasn't been the case. >if it wasn't a strategy it wouldn't exist. There are plenty of things that have evolved which give no benefit at all to the creature or are even actively harmful. For instance, many species of ducks aggressively rape females in a way that is very painful for them and can harm the birth canal. It would be objectively better (mating would require less resource expenditure) if duck mating simply involved the female choosing a dominant mate and then having low-energy, consensual sex, like most animals do. But the energy penalty isn't bad enough that ducks die out so they got stuck with the trait, and now they have weird corkscrew penises and vaginas. Also, calling being poor a "strategy" is both incorrect usage of evolutionary terms and misleading wordage. Poor people exist because some people win and some people lose, there is no strategy in losing they just didn't lose enough that they died. >These men weren't searching for a partner to raise a child but merely to quench a desire Sometimes they were, actually. In ancient and medeival era Europe it wasn't uncommon for migrating tribes to take wives from the local women they had conquered. Normans for instance took Briton wives.

>OP: i jus wanna fugg errybuddy >lainchan: now now, lets consider the mating practices of ducks and their implications for evolutionary biology. never change lainchan, never change.

>>30882 >How do i know i am mature enough to handle it? How do i know the other person is mature enough to handle it? Are you possessive and insecure about yourself and others? Do you seek petty validation and easily get jealous? Then no, you're not. >Could you elaborate? What is the right level of prudishness about sex? There shouldn't be any. Sex is just as natural and just as necessary as eating. The fact that we have all these taboos about it creates insecure, sexually repressed, petty, jealous adults who act like children. Return to monke (bonobo)

>>30901 >sex make baby all other sex is not sex is gay no, u

>>30872 These taboos make sense both on evolutionary and social level, as you don't want birth defects on progeny. For most of the time abortion was illegal, and still is in many places, so it only makes sense that incest is also illegal on most jurisdictions. It also simplifies a lot inheritance laws reducing the costs to the state. If you think about it, it also makes sense to not get involved sexually with classmates, coworkers or people from your friends group, let alone family to avoid the negative social impacts when things get awkward for whatever reason. I don't see many benefits in the end.

>>30923 That's what is meant by "mature enough to handle it." If you're gonna let sex get in the way of normal relationships otherwise, just stick to your hand. If you can be an adult about it, go ahead. As far as evolutionary responses go, you're evolutionarily conditioned to be averse to lots of things, many of which do not make sense. Sexual taboos are not different or sacred in this way. as far as "benefits in the end" go, I mean, uh, better more frequent sex is a pretty worthy goal lmao

>>30923 Actually for most of the time abortion wasn't a thing, unwanted babies were simply thrown out. If you want to read wild soykaf you can read about what courtesans did in middle ages to deal with unwanted babies. As for why you would fuarrrk close people - cause you know them better as you already spend time with them. You already might have years spend together with a classmate. If you date a total stranger that equals years behind on knowing each other.

>>30924 if the only goal is better more frequent sex, just get a (good) wife. This almost surely works better and easier than any sort of public courting, with the exception of a very bizzare zero inhibitions world where you just proposition anyone and odds are they say yes, which frankly is probably what op wants. OP is clearly talking about this from a improving social relations with friends and others sort of standpoint, whatever his ulterior motives may be.

>>30903 I suppose the single mother example mislead you. I'm specifically stating the evolutionary strat doesn't work period because our children are very high maintenance in comparison to other species.

>>30932 I guess I should also clarify that single mothers are a product of modernity and decadence, but also they aren't truly single due to daddy government. It was a rather poor example.

>>30933 Pump n dump has been a thing ever since there were men and women. Even more back then when men would die in war or defending their tribe from nomadic invaders. So don't talk bullshit.

>>30936 Youre bullshitting here. The women got paid for hubby going to war to make it worth for the guys. You die but your descendants get benefits. That was the deal. Real pump&dump occurred on the road. Armies were worse than regular robbers to villages en route.

>>30936 Stop talking out your ass pump and dump is not viable men certainly raped women in war but that doesn't mean it's a human evolutionary strat. You think the men that did that gave a soykaf about the future children? fuarrrk no they didn't do it for breeding purposes if they did it at all it was a display of dominance more than anything else.

>>30937 >The women got paid for hubby going to war to make it worth for the guys. You die but your descendants get benefits. That was the deal. WWII even germanistan and USSR only lost ~30% of armed forces. USA and UK ~3%. Modern war isnt terribly deadly, pretty sure victorious war in history wasn't generally either. And of course if you loose the battle to save your city state, who says that you, o deceased soldier, would not soon meet your young sons in the afterlife while your wife, sisters and daughters are taken as brides by the men who defeated you.

>>30899 This critique is based on a faulty assumption that the biological parents are the only ones putting in substantial effort to raise a child. Consider that for most of man's evolution, we were not isolated into family units to be raised by our parents alone, but instead were raised communally. It didn't matter if your father ran off, the social structure of the tribe was one where the other adults looked after you.

>>30941 also ignores, as I mentioned earlier, the koo-koo strategy of impregnating someone elses wife and getting another man to raise it as his own.

>>30942 Correct. In fact the nuclear family is notoriously instable. The only real "benefit" it has is that clearer patterns of inheritance are possible, and in patriarchal societies this is important. However, as inheritance becomes less and less significant (and hopefully eventually goes away) even these benefits will disappear. "It takes a village..."

>>30940 >usa in ww2 basically cheating, they only came last minute for the looting. Soviets lost over 100m. nazis had the best kda before modern spec ops thanks to soviet dumbfuck killing his own generals which lead to we have more men than they have bullets lol warfare. But thats all beside the point, you were talking about "its been always this way" and i was talking about ancient to medieval times. It should be glaringly obvious dating today is not the same as living in some village 1400.

>>30941 Koo koos are not human. We are talking about human evolutionary strats, other species have different strats that does not prove humans have the same one. >>30942 this idea of tribe over individuals assumes that there are individuals making up the tribe no? How would that work if all the males just pumped and dumped? A communal space involves several individuals committing to one another. if anything it shows the contrary.

>>30944 >usa in wwii you cherry picked one example to suit your point. UK also suffered about 3%, Japan 25, and Italy 10. In all cases, even defeated countries, the odds favour survival by quite a bit. My disagreement is with the assertion that war is where men trade their lives so papa government can take their wives. Even in badly defeated countries, most soldiers do not die. And of course in defeated countries, can papa government really be trusted to follow his word, and does the invader really care more about the widow for her husband's sacrifice? I don't know which posts you think are mine. Sure, its obvious dating isn't the same now as it was in 1400. I've been reading a lovely book called the Decameron which illustrates this point nicely. But I'm fairly sure that, while we're surely different, men and women today are largely quite similar to our 600 year old ancestors, in terms of our basic desires and modes of thought and behavior. >>30945 >el koo koo while koo koos aren't human, its clear that we've long understood this strategy to be present in human behaviour. Dismissing it because its named for a bird is absurd. It probably wouldn't work well if 100% of the males did it 100% of the time, but if a few do it all the time, or many do it a little, it works quite fine. >how would that work if all the males pump'n'dump'd Well you could have a society without clear parentage and presumptions of fatherhood for children. This is how some primates seem to do it. Females have kids, they take care of them, males sort of take care of the group. Not much direct responsibility from a father to his children, so arguably pump'n'dump, but still functional society. Obviously doesn't work if even the females just scoff at all their babies and leave them to fend for themselves, but that seems to be much less a behaviour among humans (or primates) than males doing it.

>>30946 >Females have kids, they take care of them, males sort of take care of the group. This works as long as you have a very egalitarian band. If a powerful man is able to monopolize all the women, the other men would basically be doing lots of childrearing work for no reason. The band would quickly turn into a harem, which would probably not be sustainable unless everyone in the harem won the genetic lottery and conditions are favorable. It seems a feature of every society that you get some winners and a lot of losers, but the losers need to get enough that they don't sour on the deal. Thus the invention of laws, nations, consumerism, etc. Sorry I'm waxing philosophical here

>>30947 Meant to say a feature of every *large* society. Small bands sometimes have extremely strict sharing customs, lowering efficiency but increasing stability (there is a reason such people never built big civilizations nor had any desire to)

>>30946 The reason why I bring up koo koos aren't human is specifically because I do not see it obviously present in human behavior. On another note I would not consider males taking care of the group as pumpndump. They are demonstrating a clear acceptance of responsibility for their kids by providing what they need as well as what the tribe needs. But, if you consider pumpndump to be lack of direct parenting then I suppose I get what you mean.

>>30947 >only works in an highly equal society ehh, on the other hand you can imagine a highly inequal society where, say, a small clique of males holds most of the power. Other males aren't well organized and even if they have superior numbers they don't have the power to oppose the clique. The clique gets all the girls cause it has all the power. Potentially a male outside of the clique is too dangerous though, even if he can't unseat the clique he's motivated to risk his life to have kids and could be too much of a source of instability in the group. Clique can either give him the boot, maybe another community will take him, or give him limited access to women (let him have a few kids/a wife), while keeping the majority to themselves. In the primate societies I've read about they may be helped by limited understanding of parentage mechanics by the chimps. >you always get some winners and some loosers, but the loosers need to feel like their not loosing that hard Well, a lot of loosers can just die. Also I'm pretty sure all humans have vastly more female than male ancestors. A lot of males just don't manage to have kids. Also in a society where you have a lot more families with like, ten kids (and only say, three or four making it to adulthood), you've just got yourself a lot of loosers right there. Just about everyone alive then is a winner of the genetic lottery, whereas today you have like, one or two kid families with basically all surviving to adulthood. Very different world. You can also imagine a more modern example than the small, semi egalitarian (or clique lead) band, with the quasi pump and dump (females take care of their kids, males of the whole group) scheme I suggested earlier. If you have a world of say, single mothers raising their own kids on some sort of government handout programme to which the income earning men pay taxes, its much the same thing. And who's to say you can't have an unegalitarian society where that happens, ehh. >>30949 yeah I guess that style of pump'n'dump is marginal to what people generally mean by it, but it might be the closest you could get to a full pump'n'dump world, short of one where the men just like, storm in every now and then to the ladyvillage from the woods and do their thing before running away again. >actual examples of koo koo behaviour are quite rare among us. Maybe so. I've certainly met a few, not many but a few people, who are suspected to be products of such behaviours, and historic writings have a fair few of them, Shakespeare for one, and the Decamaron I mentioned earlier for another. King Arthur as well, though not successfully due to Gwenevere's infertility. You might argue that its less of a thing now because, frankly it depends on a strong system that expects marriage, and marital fidelity, to a much higher degree than we do nowadays. All the women who'd koo kold their husbands today just call themselves poly, or get divorced.

>>30951 >Other males aren't well organized and even if they have superior numbers they don't have the power to oppose the clique. The clique gets all the girls cause it has all the power. In a small band that doesn't work because the other males will just leave. That's kind of the point, is that the clique needs the other males to participate in order to keep the band going. In the absence of modern contrivances such as government handouts, drugs, and ideologies, there's not really any good way to trick them into staying.

>koo koos rare france had it so bad they derezzed paternity tests to keep the guys paying instead of gov when father is unknown. I think it was 30% before ban on tests.

>>30953 >in france 30% paternity tests show ostensible father to not be so to be fair, this appears to just be of places where there's significant cause for doubt on the father's part. Not thirty percent of children, but thirty percent of men ordered to pay child support, who think there's a chance a paternity test will get them out. Not too many people in other words, but some nevertheless. >>30952 >In a small band that doesn't work because the other males will just leave yeah and I've gotten the impression this is a pretty big thing in other primate communities. Young males just leaving, that is. I don't want to repeat myself but I think you (or is it you, hard to tell in these threads sometimes) are making a poor conclusion about how difficult it is to manage a non egalitarian society -- its really not hard. An interesting book about basically exactly this is called chimpanzee politics, and its worth a read if you're interested. Its not quite normal chimp life because its in a zoo, but it seems pretty close and shows a lot of interactions between chimps, coalitions being built and rulers dethroned, violent and non violent transitions, pretty fascinating look at the life of a chimp community over a number of years. Its never equal, and it never really needs to be.

>>30972 >I don't want to repeat myself but I think you (or is it you, hard to tell in these threads sometimes) are making a poor conclusion about how difficult it is to manage a non egalitarian society -- its really not hard. No its not, I agree. Yet rulers seem to consistently fuarrrk it up. There has to be a general consensus that participating is better than not participating, either because its easier or because if they don't participate they will be killed. If you will be killed regardless of whether you work or not, why work? People need to believe there is some upside for them.