Quote:
Cavemen didn't link sex with childbirth (they take place 9 months apart afterall), so they had no reason to be possessive of their mates. And since cavemen lived in nomadic social groups, women usually had sex with everyone in the group. That means you are genetically "programmed" not to mind if your wife/girlfriend/mate has sex with all your friends and male family members. You are also genetically predisposed to incest because it's impossible to track who conceived which child.
It bothers me that just about everyone thinks they're qualified to talk about cavemen, even though they know next to nothing about them.
I'd like it if you posted any sort of evidence to back up these claims, because I find it hard to believe that there was no mating competition among paleolithic humans.
The fact that PUA techniques work all over the world, no matter what culture, suggests that they are rooted in biology, and that certain traits are more attractive than others, and I'd find it odd if cavemen showed no selection bias based on this.
While it's hard to know exactly how paleolithic life was, there is a lot of evidence pointing towards humans being serial monogamists, and therefor possessive of their mates. The biggest evidence for serial monogamy is probably love, which lasts an average of two years and makes the person very attached to his mate, together with the fact that women prefer men who display characteristics of good fatherhood for long term relationships. (
http://books.google.no/books?id=3u6JNwM ... on&f=false http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su ... 589095_ITM ) This suggests that men have an important role in raising a child. Just about every modern hunter-gatherer society has some form of sexual partnership. Kalahari Bushmen even have marriage:
http://books.google.no/books?id=49LL8Na ... ge&f=false
The same with the Masaii (though the masaii have turned into an agricultural society now, the institution of marriage goes way back before that time):
http://www.maasaieducation.org/maasai-c ... remony.htm
I'd go on, but I really don't want to derail further. This isn't an attack on you btw, I just very often see the "this is how cavemen lived" thing posted without any backing from evidence. Read more about "pop-darwinism" here:
http://www.alternet.org/sex/104149/cave ... es/?page=1
Gee, I guess I wasted 15 credit hours of Anthropology and Behavioral Psych. How silly of me. If you're going to deconstruct what I said, at least make counter points for what I laid out. I find it unlikely that a culture which didn't have the mouth and throat structures necessary for organized speech could produce an insubstantial concept like "love", which cannot be defined without language. Mate selection usually just means the first reproductively healthy female the healthy male comes across. Pair bonding is an eccentric exception to the natural rule. Bushmen and aboriginal cultures are still modern man, not cavemen, who are typified by cro-magnon man and neanderthal man. Modern apes are more similar to cavmen. Anyway, this isn't the place for academic dick measuring, but since you called me out and I have a problem with pride...
I totally agree that AFC Adam is a salesman. Unless someone can give a specific example of how he pissed in their cheerios, just saying he's a fraud doesn't devalue him. He's a motivational speaker and a good salesman.
CHAT
