Full Version: Its Good To Be a Slut
This is what happens when hippies become adults...
When I decided to marry my wife I not only decided to do it till death do us part, but I want us sealed for “Time and All Eternity.” The notion that I am less important because I made a commitment to one woman that I will keep instead of having sexual promiscuity with multiple partners is ridiculous. My interpretation is that the author of this article is covering for her own adulterous affairs, and by saying it has happened in the past, or by other people she feels she is ok in doing what she KNOWS is wrong.
The author of this article is trying to tell me that this tribe in the Amazon who do not have medicine or do not have air conditioners, and do not care about the walfare of the poor people in Somolia are better that me and my kind who do all these things. I would like to see her live with these tribes, and she better leave her computer and cell phone at home, she wouldn’t want to pollute the pure nature of the tribal ways that we can learn OH SOO MUCH from.
This article sickens me, I wish I never knew people like this existed, my marriage is sacred, binding and moral. The people of this tribe have moved so far away from their ancient ways that this is all they know, it is accepted because it is fun… The author speaks of how they no longer practice certain sexual activities, since the arrival of white man of course… could it possibly be that once someone from outside the tribe saw what they were doing they were embarrassed.
I am appalled by this article and want to hear what others have to say…
QUOTE
The virtues of promiscuity
Sally Lehrman
Sunday, August 18, 2002
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...18/IN237263.DTL
"Slutty" behavior is good for the species. That's the conclusion of a new wave of research on the evolutionary drives behind sexuality and parenting.
Women everywhere have been selflessly engaging in trysts outside of matrimony for a good long time and for excellent reasons. Anthropologists say female promiscuity binds communities closer together and improves the gene pool.
More than 20 tribal societies accept the principle that a child could, and ideally ought to, have more than one father, according to Pennsylvania anthropologist Stephen Beckerman. "It begins to crop up in a lot of places," says Beckerman, who has reviewed dozens of reports on tribes from South America, New Guinea, Polynesia and India as co-editor of the newly released book, "Cultures of Multiple Fathers."
Less than 50 years ago, Canela women, who live in Amazonian Brazil, enjoyed the delights of as many as 40 men one after another in festive rituals. When it was time to have a child, they'd select their favorite dozen or so lovers to help their husband with the all-important task. Even today, when the dalliances of married Bar ladies in Columbia and Venezuela result in a child, they proudly announce the long list of probable fathers. The much-touted evolutionary bargain of female fidelity for food -- trotted out by evolutionary psychologists with maddening regularity -- just doesn't hold up.
"This model of the death-do-us-part, missionary-position couple is just a tiny part of human history," says anthropologist Kristen Hawkes, who has spent years studying the Ach, a Paraguayan people, and the North Tanzanian tribe Hadza. "The patterns of human sexuality are so much more variable."
American college students still learn that human society is based on the age-old economic contract between the sexes: Men hunt and women raise children.
Fathers provide meat for the family; in exchange, moms offer fidelity and the guarantee of paternity. Although men -- who produce millions of sperm -- are inveterate philanderers, gals, stuck with relatively few eggs that require a significant investment, tend to be choosy and coy.
"This evidence is a real thumb in the eye for that view," says Beckerman. Anthropologists claim, good judgment aside, evolution has nudged women a bit toward promiscuity and sexual adventure. In all well-studied primates, females exhibit a polyandrous tendency when given the opportunity to stray. Some who cheat appear to be more fertile, and the offspring of most are more likely to survive. Fooling around appears to have helped our ancestral mothers equip their little ones for success -- the sexual equivalent of reading to them every night or enrolling in the after-school chess club.
Hawkes says females likely hook up with multiple males for safety -- a mother's strong emotional bonds with more than one fellow provide an extra- protective hand in times of danger. An economic incentive promotes female infidelity in Bar society. All of the Bar children who had more than one father were more likely to survive into adulthood, fortified by small gifts of fish and game in times of scarcity.
Even evolutionary psychologists, stout defenders of the meat-for-fidelity model, are beginning to acknowledge the benefits of women's "slutty" behavior. University of Texas psychologist David Buss gives most credit to "mate insurance," a backup replacement in case the male partner doesn't survive. Social approval of infidelity does not, however, imply a corresponding devaluation of marriage.
"They're very, very faithful," says Beckerman's co-author Paul Valentine about the Curripaco, who live on the border between Columbia and Venezuela. The tribe believes that conception is a process that requires a lot of work, and the men are quick to take credit for their joint labors. "They say, 'Hey, this is really hard work having a baby,' " Valentine says. "And they really put on a smug look."
Physiological data supports the theory that women have been sleeping around for centuries. For starters, men have evolved to compete in their partner's reproductive tract. Human males have large testicles that manufacture plenty of semen, especially when they reunite with their wives after separation. Their sperm includes coil-tailed versions that block instead of carry the ball.
Females cooperate when they want to -- more often with their lovers than with their mates, according to one study. Women retain slightly more sperm after orgasm, and in the throes of excitement may even draw the virgin swimmers up through the cervix and into the uterus, according to British sexologist R. Robin Baker.
Still, David Buss places most of the blame for all this wanderlust on the guys. Bottom line, sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive, he says. He cites his own 1993 studies of college undergraduates. Women said they'd like maybe up to five partners in a lifetime. Men in various surveys ranged from 18 up to 1,000.
Sure, both sexes have one-night stands. Both also can mate for life. But men tend toward variety and women will most often stay true to the stable, dependable provider, Buss claims.
Anthropologists are not so sure. Some say today's emphasis on female monogamy may have more to do with socioeconomic trends than evolutionary instincts. Extramarital trysts were a way of life for the Canela -- until the encroachment of outsiders.
"Multiple lovers, that's just part of the life. It's recreation, just like races and running. It's all done in the spirit of joy and fun," says William Crocker of the Smithsonian Institution, who has studied the Brazilian tribe since 1957. When a woman got pregnant with her husband, she would go out to find as many as five more "fathers" for her fetus. Because every bit of semen was believed to contribute to the baby, a dedicated mom looked for a variety of desirable traits in her lovers: sexual skills, good looks, oratory talents, top-notch singing abilities -- and naturally, a good provider.
Crocker says the Canela's sexual customs began to disappear after the arrival of traders, who brought in material goods such as machetes, axes, pots and pans, introducing the idea of exclusive ownership. The missionaries came next. The evangelists, who arrived in the early 1970s, translated the Bible into Canelan and did their part to discourage the tribe's sexual intimacy.
Beckerman says, "I suppose it doesn't mean there's any less fooling around, it's just that the fathers don't take responsibility for it and the mothers don't admit it."
Modern relationships are not all that different. High infidelity, remarriage and divorce rates may have less to do with modernity than with our collective sexual past.
"It makes the variation we're seeing in modern society so much more understandable," Hawkes says. If the anthropologists are right, monogamy may well be counter-evolutionary or an adaptation to modern life. Or perhaps the nuclear family has always been more of an ideal than a reality.
Sally Lehrman
Sunday, August 18, 2002
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...18/IN237263.DTL
"Slutty" behavior is good for the species. That's the conclusion of a new wave of research on the evolutionary drives behind sexuality and parenting.
Women everywhere have been selflessly engaging in trysts outside of matrimony for a good long time and for excellent reasons. Anthropologists say female promiscuity binds communities closer together and improves the gene pool.
More than 20 tribal societies accept the principle that a child could, and ideally ought to, have more than one father, according to Pennsylvania anthropologist Stephen Beckerman. "It begins to crop up in a lot of places," says Beckerman, who has reviewed dozens of reports on tribes from South America, New Guinea, Polynesia and India as co-editor of the newly released book, "Cultures of Multiple Fathers."
Less than 50 years ago, Canela women, who live in Amazonian Brazil, enjoyed the delights of as many as 40 men one after another in festive rituals. When it was time to have a child, they'd select their favorite dozen or so lovers to help their husband with the all-important task. Even today, when the dalliances of married Bar ladies in Columbia and Venezuela result in a child, they proudly announce the long list of probable fathers. The much-touted evolutionary bargain of female fidelity for food -- trotted out by evolutionary psychologists with maddening regularity -- just doesn't hold up.
"This model of the death-do-us-part, missionary-position couple is just a tiny part of human history," says anthropologist Kristen Hawkes, who has spent years studying the Ach, a Paraguayan people, and the North Tanzanian tribe Hadza. "The patterns of human sexuality are so much more variable."
American college students still learn that human society is based on the age-old economic contract between the sexes: Men hunt and women raise children.
Fathers provide meat for the family; in exchange, moms offer fidelity and the guarantee of paternity. Although men -- who produce millions of sperm -- are inveterate philanderers, gals, stuck with relatively few eggs that require a significant investment, tend to be choosy and coy.
"This evidence is a real thumb in the eye for that view," says Beckerman. Anthropologists claim, good judgment aside, evolution has nudged women a bit toward promiscuity and sexual adventure. In all well-studied primates, females exhibit a polyandrous tendency when given the opportunity to stray. Some who cheat appear to be more fertile, and the offspring of most are more likely to survive. Fooling around appears to have helped our ancestral mothers equip their little ones for success -- the sexual equivalent of reading to them every night or enrolling in the after-school chess club.
Hawkes says females likely hook up with multiple males for safety -- a mother's strong emotional bonds with more than one fellow provide an extra- protective hand in times of danger. An economic incentive promotes female infidelity in Bar society. All of the Bar children who had more than one father were more likely to survive into adulthood, fortified by small gifts of fish and game in times of scarcity.
Even evolutionary psychologists, stout defenders of the meat-for-fidelity model, are beginning to acknowledge the benefits of women's "slutty" behavior. University of Texas psychologist David Buss gives most credit to "mate insurance," a backup replacement in case the male partner doesn't survive. Social approval of infidelity does not, however, imply a corresponding devaluation of marriage.
"They're very, very faithful," says Beckerman's co-author Paul Valentine about the Curripaco, who live on the border between Columbia and Venezuela. The tribe believes that conception is a process that requires a lot of work, and the men are quick to take credit for their joint labors. "They say, 'Hey, this is really hard work having a baby,' " Valentine says. "And they really put on a smug look."
Physiological data supports the theory that women have been sleeping around for centuries. For starters, men have evolved to compete in their partner's reproductive tract. Human males have large testicles that manufacture plenty of semen, especially when they reunite with their wives after separation. Their sperm includes coil-tailed versions that block instead of carry the ball.
Females cooperate when they want to -- more often with their lovers than with their mates, according to one study. Women retain slightly more sperm after orgasm, and in the throes of excitement may even draw the virgin swimmers up through the cervix and into the uterus, according to British sexologist R. Robin Baker.
Still, David Buss places most of the blame for all this wanderlust on the guys. Bottom line, sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive, he says. He cites his own 1993 studies of college undergraduates. Women said they'd like maybe up to five partners in a lifetime. Men in various surveys ranged from 18 up to 1,000.
Sure, both sexes have one-night stands. Both also can mate for life. But men tend toward variety and women will most often stay true to the stable, dependable provider, Buss claims.
Anthropologists are not so sure. Some say today's emphasis on female monogamy may have more to do with socioeconomic trends than evolutionary instincts. Extramarital trysts were a way of life for the Canela -- until the encroachment of outsiders.
"Multiple lovers, that's just part of the life. It's recreation, just like races and running. It's all done in the spirit of joy and fun," says William Crocker of the Smithsonian Institution, who has studied the Brazilian tribe since 1957. When a woman got pregnant with her husband, she would go out to find as many as five more "fathers" for her fetus. Because every bit of semen was believed to contribute to the baby, a dedicated mom looked for a variety of desirable traits in her lovers: sexual skills, good looks, oratory talents, top-notch singing abilities -- and naturally, a good provider.
Crocker says the Canela's sexual customs began to disappear after the arrival of traders, who brought in material goods such as machetes, axes, pots and pans, introducing the idea of exclusive ownership. The missionaries came next. The evangelists, who arrived in the early 1970s, translated the Bible into Canelan and did their part to discourage the tribe's sexual intimacy.
Beckerman says, "I suppose it doesn't mean there's any less fooling around, it's just that the fathers don't take responsibility for it and the mothers don't admit it."
Modern relationships are not all that different. High infidelity, remarriage and divorce rates may have less to do with modernity than with our collective sexual past.
"It makes the variation we're seeing in modern society so much more understandable," Hawkes says. If the anthropologists are right, monogamy may well be counter-evolutionary or an adaptation to modern life. Or perhaps the nuclear family has always been more of an ideal than a reality.
When I decided to marry my wife I not only decided to do it till death do us part, but I want us sealed for “Time and All Eternity.” The notion that I am less important because I made a commitment to one woman that I will keep instead of having sexual promiscuity with multiple partners is ridiculous. My interpretation is that the author of this article is covering for her own adulterous affairs, and by saying it has happened in the past, or by other people she feels she is ok in doing what she KNOWS is wrong.
The author of this article is trying to tell me that this tribe in the Amazon who do not have medicine or do not have air conditioners, and do not care about the walfare of the poor people in Somolia are better that me and my kind who do all these things. I would like to see her live with these tribes, and she better leave her computer and cell phone at home, she wouldn’t want to pollute the pure nature of the tribal ways that we can learn OH SOO MUCH from.
This article sickens me, I wish I never knew people like this existed, my marriage is sacred, binding and moral. The people of this tribe have moved so far away from their ancient ways that this is all they know, it is accepted because it is fun… The author speaks of how they no longer practice certain sexual activities, since the arrival of white man of course… could it possibly be that once someone from outside the tribe saw what they were doing they were embarrassed.
I am appalled by this article and want to hear what others have to say…
This doesn't bother me. The beauty of America is that it offers many choices.
Sure, you may find others' decision on this choice of lifestyle appalling, but so what? You're free to think it is wrong and to tell your children the same.
I forsee the rebuttal to this going something like "yeah, but they'll teach this in our colleges and universities and corrupt our youth." Well, guess what? It ALREADY is being taught.
I graduated college 2 years ago. I was taught everything in that article plus some. I am in no way corrupted by it and I went to your typical left leaning university (you would have LOVED the definition of family as it were taught in my Gender and Society class but I'll save that for another day).
Sure, you may find others' decision on this choice of lifestyle appalling, but so what? You're free to think it is wrong and to tell your children the same.
I forsee the rebuttal to this going something like "yeah, but they'll teach this in our colleges and universities and corrupt our youth." Well, guess what? It ALREADY is being taught.
I graduated college 2 years ago. I was taught everything in that article plus some. I am in no way corrupted by it and I went to your typical left leaning university (you would have LOVED the definition of family as it were taught in my Gender and Society class but I'll save that for another day).
It's good to have an open mind, but this is pure garbage. The problem, however, is this behavior is glorified with the youngest children without any parental consent. I can't even argue this, except to say, 'WTF'?
Right… I agree that this person can thing the way they want, but there comes the issues of community ethics and morals. While ethics change depending on what you see as right and wrong, the morals are universal. They include do not kill and are universal because of the “something might happen to me rule” for example if I kill, the family of the guy I killed might kill me. Or if I steal someone might steal from me, like wise is the sleep around rule…if I sleep around then my partner might sleep around.
I know they teach that this is ok in schools…that to each his own I believe the saying is. But we cannot put up with it, these are the same people that teach Columbus was a mass murder who brought disease to the Indians, and our founding fathers were a bunch of hypocrites and bigots. The changing of history had a much stronger than the truth, but if we just say well they taught it to me and it didn’t effect me then we are doomed to never learn the truth.
You have to understand that the people in this forum are the minority. The majority of people (especially college students) take everything they are told as truth, especially when it comes form a teacher, newspaper or TV news.
This war is going to be harder, but the truth has to be told, the rewriting of history stopped, and morality and ethics restored to America. We didn’t become the most influential nation by stepping on the world like some many like to think. We became influential because the morals and superior idea of freedom.
I know they teach that this is ok in schools…that to each his own I believe the saying is. But we cannot put up with it, these are the same people that teach Columbus was a mass murder who brought disease to the Indians, and our founding fathers were a bunch of hypocrites and bigots. The changing of history had a much stronger than the truth, but if we just say well they taught it to me and it didn’t effect me then we are doomed to never learn the truth.
You have to understand that the people in this forum are the minority. The majority of people (especially college students) take everything they are told as truth, especially when it comes form a teacher, newspaper or TV news.
This war is going to be harder, but the truth has to be told, the rewriting of history stopped, and morality and ethics restored to America. We didn’t become the most influential nation by stepping on the world like some many like to think. We became influential because the morals and superior idea of freedom.
I majored in Physical/Forensic Anthropology at College, which unfortunately meant that I also had to take my share of Cultural Anthropology as part of the requirement for the major. I once had to read a book that was a study of a South American tribe whose whole culture is based upon the chewing and exchanging of coca leaves. The cultural anthropologist that wrote this made this act out to be a very sacred and methodical process with very deep significance. I had to write a response essay on this book, so I proceeded to write an essay on the exchange of marijuana buds. How there are certain ways that it is exchanged, that people often sit in a "ceremonial circle" and pass it around, that if you were to purchase this bud that it is tradition to smoke this bud with the person you are purchasing it from, etc. I made it out to be a very sacred and meaningful process. I felt that what I wrote was no different than the book I had just read. . . .because when ya get down to it THEY ARE JUST DRUG ADDICTS!!! I was given only a "B-" on the paper because, my teacher thought that it was not cultural. And this brings me to why that book and stories like the one drmarcs posted anger me. Why is it that every other country and race in the world has "culture" but if ya did the same thing in America you would be considered a "slut" or a "drug addict". Cultural Anthropologists love to romanticize other peoples and display Americans as devoid of culture. 
I have no problem with what other peoples do or think is right, I just hate it when it is displayed as obviously better and more significant than how Americans typically do it.
I think it is extremely presumptuous to think that just because a woman wrote that story she is a "slut". Drmarcs, do you know this woman or anything about her. For all you know, her editor told her to write that story and she had no say in the matter.
I went to an extremely liberal arts college (I appologise for using the "L" word, drmarcs) but one thing that was good about that type of education is that you are not taught to take everything the "teacher, newspaper or TV news" tells you as truth. Instead you are pushed to think for yourself, to do your own research on a "truth" and (if you can) prove it wrong.
OK, I'll step down from the soapbox now.
-Kisov
I have no problem with what other peoples do or think is right, I just hate it when it is displayed as obviously better and more significant than how Americans typically do it.
I think it is extremely presumptuous to think that just because a woman wrote that story she is a "slut". Drmarcs, do you know this woman or anything about her. For all you know, her editor told her to write that story and she had no say in the matter.
I went to an extremely liberal arts college (I appologise for using the "L" word, drmarcs) but one thing that was good about that type of education is that you are not taught to take everything the "teacher, newspaper or TV news" tells you as truth. Instead you are pushed to think for yourself, to do your own research on a "truth" and (if you can) prove it wrong.
OK, I'll step down from the soapbox now.
-Kisov
I never said she was a slut, I mentioned that one reason for seeing the sexual sharing as an acceptable practice and how the till-death-do-us-part culture as a passé form of American religion is that she might be justifying her own actions. I’m not saying this is correct, but a lot of times you justify others actions when you are doing the same thing.
You are right I don’t know her, I only know the subject in which she writes about, and the tone for which she justifies the actions of an inferior culture. She might be a good virtuous woman, struggling to maintain a monogamous marriage with her husband. She might be one who is raising children to respect others, be responsible citizens, fight for what is right, and reach their full potential.
But I doubt it…
You are right I don’t know her, I only know the subject in which she writes about, and the tone for which she justifies the actions of an inferior culture. She might be a good virtuous woman, struggling to maintain a monogamous marriage with her husband. She might be one who is raising children to respect others, be responsible citizens, fight for what is right, and reach their full potential.
But I doubt it…
You know, this all gets back to the whole issue of choices that we have touched on in so many different areas of this forum.
If we had choice of schools for our children I don't think this would be much of an issue.
There are a few things that left me confused, drmarcs. First, your definitions of morals and ethics are very different from mine. My understanding was ethics involved self-government/social contract acceptance and morals were religious/faith based on an idea one had to answer to a high power. Not really on the subject. Just curious.
Second, you said:
If we had choice of schools for our children I don't think this would be much of an issue.
There are a few things that left me confused, drmarcs. First, your definitions of morals and ethics are very different from mine. My understanding was ethics involved self-government/social contract acceptance and morals were religious/faith based on an idea one had to answer to a high power. Not really on the subject. Just curious.
Second, you said:
QUOTE
This war is going to be harder, but the truth has to be told, the rewriting of history stopped, and morality and ethics restored to America.
What war?
Morals are universal truths (at least that’s how my philosophy class defined them) and depending on your religious, social, background you classify the same moral with different backings.
For example:
Christian Religion – Thou shall not commit adultery.
Non religious – I don’t want my partner cheating on me so I won’t cheat on them.
Religion – Do unto others as you would do unto them.
Non religion – I fear if I hurt someone they might hurt me…so I wont hurt them.
Now the war…
The war is with the people that want to strip you away from your children. Through indoctrinating teachings like above, the encouragement of secrets like the Planned Parenthood MO. Also known as the “government can raise you kid better than you crowd”. This is who we are at war with, victory is your child growing up to a productive citizen who knows his responsibilities and fights for what is right. Every day is a battle and our weapons include this site, our religion, and your family.
For example:
Christian Religion – Thou shall not commit adultery.
Non religious – I don’t want my partner cheating on me so I won’t cheat on them.
Religion – Do unto others as you would do unto them.
Non religion – I fear if I hurt someone they might hurt me…so I wont hurt them.
Now the war…
The war is with the people that want to strip you away from your children. Through indoctrinating teachings like above, the encouragement of secrets like the Planned Parenthood MO. Also known as the “government can raise you kid better than you crowd”. This is who we are at war with, victory is your child growing up to a productive citizen who knows his responsibilities and fights for what is right. Every day is a battle and our weapons include this site, our religion, and your family.
So now it's wrong for someone (an anthropologist) to go and study someone else's culture and then comeback and tell us what worked for them. She is not saying that we should do this nor that this will work in our society. And saying that they do it because it is fun is f'n stupid she said in her article the reasons for these habits...I'm sorry to say that this behaviour is typical from a Republican Bible pusher...
And it's not a universal truth that we shouldn't commit adultery, there are people that have completely open relationships...
...and no one should care about the welfare of the people in Somalia because the more we feed them the more food they will need and so on and so on...
And it's not a universal truth that we shouldn't commit adultery, there are people that have completely open relationships...
...and no one should care about the welfare of the people in Somalia because the more we feed them the more food they will need and so on and so on...
So what does it mean when I completely agree with Limpubus? The world is ending? Or maybe this forum is doing it's job.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.