Sex at Dawn: The Paleolithic lifestyle, Polyamory, and Anarchism

September 9th, 2012   Submitted by Seth King

Within libertarian circles the popularity of the paleolithic diet is exploding. The logic behind the primal blueprint is simple: for 200,000 years paleolithic man subsisted on a hunter-gatherer diet; agricultural living is a recent phenomena; the transition to a grain-based diet has had deleterious effects on human health. This rediscovery of my ancestral diet begs the question: what else about the paleolithic lifestyle should I be emulating?

Primal footwear seems to be equally in vogue as people are now frequently seen sporting Vibram Fivefingers instead of traditional sneakers. Claimed health benefits include reduced blood pressure, reduced back pain, increased balance, and more. However, despite my faith in the efficacy of the caveman diet and primal footwear I have yet to experiment with either.

A lesser known, but perhaps equally important, routine for paleolithic man was the act of squatting. This is something I have great experience with.

Several years ago I began to develop an extreme discomfort during bowel movements. My suffering lasted a couple of years. All the while I couldn’t help but to think that I was doing something wrong. What it was eluded me.

One day, after a relatively frustrating bathroom experience, I decided to do some serious research. Where it landed me was a Godsend. I had discovered the health benefits of the squatting position. I immediately purchased the Nature’s Platform. That was more than three years ago. Since the day of its arrival in the mail I have not once returned to the sitting position, not even during travel.

Reflecting further upon the benefits of squatting it seemed to me to be the natural position adopted during childbirth, at least by paleolithic woman. Surely, ancestral women were not forced to fight gravity while laying on their backs in an inclined position!

Rewind to when I was in 7th grade. The first instance of a lifelong malady would occur during lunch. A bite of my food would become lodged in my esophagus. After several hours, and much agony, I was able to dispel the food. This problem has plagued me to this day. As a result I am forced to eat at an abnormally slow pace, chewing thoroughly, and swallowing very small amounts, all while drinking copious amounts of fluids to help wash it down.

Twice I have had to visit the emergency room in order to be given muscle relaxants to help pass the food, either up or down.

Fast forward to recent history. A few weeks ago I accidentally got a bite of steak stuck in my esophagus. Steak is the worst kind of food to get stuck because it will not break up and dissolve over time. After 30 minutes of struggling to get the food down I was sure I was going to have to visit the E.R. again.

But what I had learned from previous experiences coupled with my fascination with the primal lifestyle I decided to try something I had never before done. I decided to assume the squatting position. I had my glass of water and a bowl nearby in case the water I would use to help force down the food came back up. But after only a few moments of resting in the squat position I could feel my esophagus working its magic. Shortly thereafter I took a swig of water and without any difficulty, the food had passed.

My logic in doing this was that paleolithic man did not sit upright at a table while eating. He likely hovered over his fresh kill or collection of berries and ate while squatting. Since this revelation I have been eating dinners at home in the squat position. I use a piano stool that puts me at perfect height with the dinner table. I have noticed a definite increase of ease while swallowing food. My wife’s explanation for this ease is that the diaphragm constricts the esophagus while sitting upright, but is open and spread out while in the squatting position, thus allowing easier flow to the stomach.

This affirmation of the benefit of the squatting position has made me do a double take on the paleolithic lifestyle. So when a concept that is completely foreign to my culture is advertised as being in accordance with our prehistoric nature, I take notice. This leads me to polyamory.

I am a happily married man of three years. But shortly after my wedding I converted to anarchism. Had I known then what I know now I can honestly say I would have done it differently. Not being religious I saw no point in a church wedding. Still a minarchist, however, I opted for state recognition and got legally married. Had I been an anarchist at the time I would have chosen neither the church nor the state as a nuptial authority.

I’ve long believed that marriage isn’t for everybody. As time went on I’ve come to believe that marriage isn’t for anybody. Neither the church nor the state can keep two people who want nothing to do with each other together. Where there is love or a sense of commitment there is no need for marriage. Historically, marriage seems to be more a tool for oppression than anything.

With this in mind I’ve begun questioning monogamy as well. While most westerners claim to be monogamous I feel the evidence shows otherwise. At best many people could be considered serial monogamists, being with only one mate at a time. But in the historically understood, biological definition of monogamy, humans by-and-large do not mate with one, and only one, person their entire life, at least not without great difficulty. Furthermore, with the rate at which relationships end with unsanctioned affairs, it seems humanity’s biological imperative to have sexual relations with many trumps the westerner’s cultural expectation to remain sexually exclusive to one.

Researching these topics online I stumbled across a video podcaster who may very well be the Stefan Molyneux of relationships. Watching his videos on polyamory I couldn’t help but to think that this very nondescript looking individual, much like Molyneux, had some very poignant views to share concerning love and human sexuality.

One lead he gave me resulted in my purchasing what is often considered the bible of polyamory. The book Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships gives a sobering outlook at not only man’s evolutionary psychology since the paleolithic period, but also our cultural and physical anthropological predilection towards promiscuity.

Going into the book I expected it to be more of a modern how-to approach to the polyamorous lifestyle. Instead the authors took us back in time to explore how our ancestors related to each other. An overwhelmingly solid case is made, and our ancestral history confirms, that humans’ bodies are biologically hard wired for multiple and frequent sexual partners.

In making these claims the authors, a male-female married couple, show that man’s fall from a life of peace and abundance happened as a result of the agricultural revolution roughly 10,000 B.C.E.

Turns out, the Garden of Eden wasn’t really a garden at all. It was anything but a garden: jungle, forest, wild seashore, open savanna, windblown tundra. Adam and Eve weren’t kicked out of a garden. They were kicked into one.(Sex at Dawn, p. 81)

Interestingly enough throughout the book the authors unwittingly, or covertly, make the case for anarcho-primitivism. They turn the Hobbesian view on its head that prehistoric life was solitary, nasty, brutish, and short. On the contrary, the evidence is clear that our distant ancestors led highly social, sexual, peaceful, and relaxed lifestyles. Only after the discovery of agriculture did a life of abundance worth sharing turn into a life of scarcity worth competing over. And this includes mates.

Despite being marketed to the polycurious, Sex at Dawn reads more like a social science textbook. It isn’t at all titillating, opting instead for a casual scholarly tone. That being said it is a completely fascinating read. I haven’t been exposed to anything this paradigm-shifting since Rothbard’s For a New Liberty. Practically every paragraph forced me to stop and scratch my head. Each page would simultaneously challenge my worldview and blow my mind. There were simply so many thought provoking concepts in the book I’ve decided to not even bother sharing any of them in this article. Which to choose? Each one is an article in itself!

All in all Sex at Dawn is a must read for struggling married couples, soon-to-be married couples, singles, and the entire libertarian community as a whole. Polyamory may very well be the next primal lifestyle choice to break into the mainstream.

44 Responses to “Sex at Dawn: The Paleolithic lifestyle, Polyamory, and Anarchism”

  1. HReardenNo Gravatar says:

    I’m not necessarily one who goes in for the latest fads. I hae an anti-follow the herd mentality. I think this palro thing is the most recent fad. To each his own. If you get benefit from it then good for you.

    $

  2. BrendanNo Gravatar says:

    I’ve been polyamorous for longer than I’ve been a libertarian and an anarchist, but I strongly feel that the two are very compatible. For me, polyamory is a rejection of the idea that I “own” my partner/s. The proprietary attitude of most relationships really bothers me, as a libertarian.

    My wife and I were married in the woods, with just the two of us there. We did have our marriage recognized by the state later, so that they would steal a little less from us, and to secure hospital visitation privileges. Personally I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of whatever benefits the state does offer, since they’re stealing my money regardless – I might as well get a little something where I can as recompense.

  3. r3VOLutionRefugeeNo Gravatar says:

    Count me in as a witness to the efficacy of the primal/paleo diet. Started in January and it has been incredible.

    The squatting position stuff is pretty fascinating. I had no idea the benefits were so widespread. The ‘Primal Blueprint’ book mentioned the squatting position as an alternative to traditional stretching, but I had no idea there were so many ‘processing’ benefits.

    And I have to laugh at the polyamory part(the statist spellchecker doesn’t even recognize the word. lol, it doesn’t recognize statist either!). I swear Seth, you must wake up every morning and think, ‘what is the most controversial thing I could possibly write about today?’ I guess we need something to talk about once the ‘thrill’ of becoming an anarchists subsides.

    So what does the book say about paleo families and communities? Did they have family units with what we would consider ‘open marriages’ or were there pair-bonded family units at all?

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      That’s a good question!

      The modern understanding of family appears to be a construct of the agricultural age. Paleolithic men and women appeared to be very promiscuous. As a result, there was complete uncertainty who fathered whom. Children were by and large raised communally. It is also conjectured that the family unit is so abusive to children because children are seen as property to their parents and are stuck where they are. Communally raised children could simply spend their time in the presence of other adults if they wished.

      • RagnarNo Gravatar says:

        I’ll have to get a copy. Interesting question: Do you think having made the leap to a fairly “fringe” political position like libertarianism or anarchism makes one more ready to consider less “traditional” styles of relationship or family? Or is there just some non-causational overlap between the two groups, possibly because they both require an ability to look at what you’ve always been taught with an objective and open mind?

  4. Kathy KingNo Gravatar says:

    Well, I’ve always questioned whether “progress” is really progress at all. Civilization is anything but civilized! Sounds like humanity may need to come full circle to survive and thrive. But, son, save a chair for me, please.

  5. JanNo Gravatar says:

    Seth,

    What is the name of the podcaster who is the Stefan Molyneux of relationships?

  6. YossarianNo Gravatar says:

    Charles Lindbergh had 4 wives and a total
    of approx 13 children: 6 with Anne Morrow
    in the US and 7 w/ 3 German women, 2
    of whom were sisters.

    He was in his mid-fifties when he started
    his European families.

    Part of the NWO control mechanism is
    to restrict the size of tribes. This was esp
    true w/ the advent of the Roman empire
    and has cont’d to the modern era (the
    Roman Empire never disappeared
    but simply went underground).

    It was quite common in the Old
    Teatament (and never condemned
    or counted as a sin) for a man to
    take multiple wives.

    In the New Testament, nowhere
    is anyone forbidden to have more
    than one wife except if a man is
    chosen as one of the overseers
    in a local church.

    Multiples are needful and normal,
    IMHO.

    But the society we’ve been sold
    has a normalcy bias against that sort
    of thing.

    Lindy saw through the scam and many
    others, including the Yid banksters
    who own the freaking planet.

    Yossarian out.

    • SelenaNo Gravatar says:

      Polyamory isn’t the same as Polygyny. Men may have had more than one wife in the bible time, but how is this fair to women who are stuck with the same man, and will be killed if they stray? Monogamy only gave the same restrictions women had to men. Social monogamy exists in other species, but social monogamy and sexual monogamy aren’t the same. Social monogamy is practical for some species, like birds and humans, because the offspring need a lot of care, and therefore it is more practical for a male and female to stay together to raise sad offspring. But in most animals that are socially monogamous, not all the offspring will be of the same father/mother. Also, the individual would usually mate for a season and then change mate, occasionally staying with the same mate, but rarely.
      People see reconstituted families as a bad, unstable environment for children, but it’s actually a perfectly natural occurrence. Tribes would have a variety of children all raised together like siblings, and when they became adults (biologically) they would mate with people of other tribes more often than not (to avoid incest). But polygyny isn’t natural since it leaves women sexually frustrated and as a possession of a man.

  7. helioNo Gravatar says:

    Holy fecal matter, Seth. Today will mark one of the four earth shattering days of my life. I started the book and cant stop reading. So many pieces seem to fall into place.

    How deep the rabit hole indeed.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      No kidding? You read this article and turned around and bought the book in the same day? Crazy!

      Yeah, I had a hard time putting the book down as well. The last 1/3 of the book is the best! Enjoy!

      • helioNo Gravatar says:

        I previewed it on my android kindle app with skepticism and was immediately sucked into it. I read for about 13 hours yesterday.

        In my opinion, it explains perfectly the origins of statism, child abuse and many ills. I totally had never considered that human beings started out as anything but monogamous.

        Not finished with it yet but the giant question in my mind is how to reconcile these ideas with market anarchism.

        Great read.

        • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

          Let me know once you’re finished, then we’ll talk. The last part of the book is the best, so you shouldn’t have any trouble finishing it soon. Glad you like it!

          • helioNo Gravatar says:

            Apparently I was about 2 pages away from the end when i posted that. Kindle reader said i was only 65% through but there is a boatload of citations and appendices.

            Im going to read it again, though more slowly to pore over the numerous citations and referenced material.

            This book completely won the argument in my mind and changed a deeply held belief. It is going to take some time to process it all.

  8. Bob RobertsonNo Gravatar says:

    The EST training (if you want to know, watch the movie Semi-Tough) had a section on sex.

    “When you’re hot, you’re hot. When you’re not, you’re not.”

    I agree about updating people’s expectations to fit reality, rather than the endless warping of reality to fit someone’s expectation. But that is what obedience to arbitrary authority is all about.

    Paleo works for me, too. And, some day, it might even be fun.

  9. DullHawkNo Gravatar says:

    I may just have to get that book. I feel I have always been polyamorous- but everyone I’ve ever been with says I just “want to cheat”. It has caused much tragedy in my life (probably even more than my atheism and anarchism). Yet, I have almost always been truly in love with more than one woman at any one time- even when I was very happy with the “primary” one.

    I have always been told that I can be faithful if I just decide to. And, physically, I can be. It makes me miserable and destroys the relationship I am trying to save, but I can be “faithful”.

    But, although the book sounds incredibly fascinating from an academic perspective, I’m not sure it can really help me now; being with someone now who “hates cheating”, yet refuses to have sex. Ever. I will stay due to financial and familial circumstances. And hope for a well-placed (small) meteor strike.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      Ahahahah! That’s brutal! Good luck man! Thanks for sharing!

    • Mark DavisNo Gravatar says:

      My wife and I have a wonderful sex life and she “hates cheating” too. But sex in our marriage contract was based on “the right of first refusal” instead of the typical whenever the woman wants to. I’ve never had to exercise my option, but she knows it is always there. If I don’t get it at home I will look elsewhere. Too much power in the relationship goes to the woman if they have exclusive control over sex. Maybe you can renegotiate that clause?

      • DullHawkNo Gravatar says:

        There was never any negotiating to begin with- that’s probably the root of the trouble. In fact, although I didn’t know it at the time, there was never any actual relationship- not with the real person. The entire relationship was based upon lies from the beginning. Her name, who she was (yes, that’s different), what she did, what she liked, her attitudes and opinions- all were carefully-crafted lies that only became exposed after it was “too late” and we had a daughter on the way. And then the pretense ended and the real person came out.

        Yes, I was an idiot on many levels. But when there was never a real relationship with a real person, but only a “persona” who was discarded once it was no longer useful, where do you go from there? No, I won’t leave because of my daughter and financial considerations, and I won’t use the government to try to get my way.

  10. r3VOLutionRefugeeNo Gravatar says:

    So, continuing our conversation above,

    Half of this falls right in line with Stefan’s strategy for changing the world: extend full personhood to children, eliminate the idea of parental ‘ownership’ of a child, and abolish the idea of the family as a unit of obligation or force.

    The lack of primary pair bonding is surprising though. Apparently one of the prevalent indicators of a bad childhood is being raised by a single mother. Perhaps that is because of the lack of an intimate tribal structure for social support? Modern day humans seem to be isolated in social slave pens. I’m guessing that if this were to work, women would have to give up the idea of finding one dependable guy, and be confident that multiple dependable guys will stick around and help out in different ways. Oh, and the men would have to not kill each other. But if they get sexual variety, that should keep them happy and docile.

    In any case, we have an easy way of confirming weather or not this works, and how it is done. Someone look up how monkeys work this stuff out in the wild, and get back to me.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      That’s actually what a large portion of this book is about. Comparing and contrasting the different primates. People often think we’re like chimps, but the authors claim we’re more like bonobos. The sexuality of bonobos, and other primates and very different and very interesting. This is a really killer book. You might consider checking it out. I think you’d really like it.

  11. I can vouch for the paleo diet as well, in addition to the VFFs. The whole thing with squatting isn’t my cup of tea, as both my knees start to hurt after a while and I’m still nursing hip flexor injuries. While I have never been one to try the polyamorous relationships, to each their own.

    I’ll have to check this book out.

  12. macsnafuNo Gravatar says:

    Well, there’s certainly some interesting ideas, there, but let’s not get too carried away. It was leaving the hunter-gatherer society and creating farming communities that led to greater division of labor and more technological progress. Yes, we also got the state from it, but was that inevitable, or just a historical and circumstantial accident?

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      I hear what you’re saying. It would be nice to have the technological progress without the state. But the authors bring up two good points in the book, which I find interesting.

      #1 Sex is the motivating force in our lives. In paleolithic times there was so much sex happening, that prehistoric humans weren’t concerned with “progress” because they were already fully content with their amazing sex lives. Modern society is built on sexual frustration. Think about it, if you were getting laid every day with a new partner(s), would you be really concerned about designing the newest widget?

      So, it sort of saddens me that we seem to be left with two choices, amazing sex lives and living in the jungle, or miserable sex lives(by comparison) and technological advancement.

      #2 During hunter-gatherer times paleolithic man lived in abundance. There was no need to steal as there was nothing to steal from another that you didn’t have already(including mates).

      The agricultural age created sharp divides between the haves and have-nots. Theft resulted. And since the state is really just a thieving criminal organization, could it not be said that with one(agriculture) comes the other(the state)?

      I’m still trying to reconcile the two. Are we doomed to either living primitively yet crime free, or living technologically advance, with a gigantic parasitic state on our backs and a globe of sexually deprived people?

      I remember reading a quote on LewRockwell.com once that I really liked, but find even more intriguing in the context of Sex at Dawn. The quote is:

      “If the people can do whatever they want, you get Woodstock. If the government can do whatever it wants, you get Auschwitz.”

      I’ve often thought that there is no way the parasite class will go quietly into the night, and that they would rather take us into the stone age before letting us be free. Perhaps they know that if we are free to do all the sex and drugs that we want that we would be nothing more than primitive man all over again.

      • helioNo Gravatar says:

        Thats how it struck me as well. Which led me to a new idea for activism : Fuck the State Away.

        Also, it really sparked my curiosity about mutualism since the hunter gatherers shared EVERYTHING. I had always dismissed mutualism because i didnt consider that it only works in a group with strong interpersonal bonds like an extended family of Hunter gatherers.

        One key phrase used in the book is ‘immediate return hunter gatherers’. That means that there was almost no delay in the return of labor and capital towards consumption of final goods. One merely had to walk out into the environment and take what was needed. No one stored food.

        Basically there was no need for property or economics because nothing was very scarce. Utopia.

        Scarcity creates the need for property rights and economics but does that lead to statism?

        This book makes me question whether markets and economics can solve the problem. Not that I have any idea what is better.
        Certainly not central planning.

        • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

          Libertarians often like to blame all of the bad stuff on what the government does, it’s laws and effects. But why is the government getting away with all of these laws? Maybe it really is because people are fucking so much that they aren’t paying attention to what the government is doing, which in turn is leading to complete societal collapse.

      • GilNo Gravatar says:

        Gee if Greenpeace or PETA advocated such primitivism which would kill off 99% of the world’s population (the real reason tribal people were few and between) then they’re evil misanthropes but tie in some hatred of government and Libertarians would send 99% of humanity to their deaths in a heartbeat. One thing guys forget when falling in love with the concept of having many wives is that you have to be a super-Alpha male. If every married man has four wives then that means 75% of men are hopelessly single. It’s interesting to find out the violence in Middle Eastern men is consistent with the notion it’s because they can’t get women therefore have no stake in the game of life thus they can afford to throw their lives away than because of their Muslim faith. After all, what makes men here feel good they’re going to be tomorrow’s super-Alpha male if all technology is somehow long gone?

        • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

          The book did not advocate polygyny. That would be more indicative of gorillas. Bonobos, on the other hand, have many mates without possession. It seems all males and females mate frequently.

      • MTJonesNo Gravatar says:

        Interesting! I do believe paleo sex lives were more satisfying. That being said, more sexual partners does not necessarily equal greater sexual satisfaction! On a physical and emotional level, being with someone whom you trust and has learned how to please you- (takes time) and whom you enjoy bringing sexual gratification to is very satisfying overall.

        Gardening (small areas) areas that were settled near fresh water and abundant in root vegetables, fruits, nuts and medicinal herbs from saving seeds from foraged/ gathered foods is a sign of intelligence. Couple that with herding (again a small amount) of animals, and you have much more time on your hands….for that transcending realities and multiple universes tantric sex aforementioned!

        From an evolutionary stand point one can make arguments for both sides fidelity or more specifically either for monotony or for polyamory. Hypothetically speaking: If a woman was to have multiple sexual partners, it would be difficult to determine paternity and therefor become a threat to any or man’s genetic legacy. If a man cheated physically, it wouldn’t be much of a threat to a woman- if he can help provide fire both families or ‘combined’ family. If a man was to cheat emotionally, invest time in courting another woman- it takes time and resources away from the ‘first’ woman (for all of better term in this brief hypothetical situation)

        The arguments that I have seen about the nature of relationships between man and women represented here only focus on sex as a physical act. There is an emotional aspect being ignored as well as a chemical aspect and you should not base such hypothesis on just one aspect when there are many. Being ‘in love’ is comparable to a form of addiction, physical contact cause our bodies to release chemicals and hormones that determine our moods and how we act and influence how we feel. Orgasm also has a similar result.

        I have a theory based on choice: we as sentient beings have this ability to think. We are not confined to our biological evolution, but also the gift (whether by God or evolution or BOTH- whatever) of free thought. Some people are meant to be with no one. Some with one person. Some with many.

        IMO- physically we are attracted to many, emotionally we are attracted to many, and or some- who know who they are and are completely honest with themselves and others there can be that ‘soul mate’. It depends on an individuals progress as a physical and sentient being.

  13. Kyfho MyobaNo Gravatar says:

    Haven’t read the book, but just off the top of my head, BULLSHIT.
    If the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was so freakin’ great, How did the agricultural “revolution” take hold?! Could it be because agriculture allows for previously not useful land to support a relatively large population? A population that might not exist because the other land was already at or past its carrying capacity? A carrying capacity that meant either war or starvation or agriculture? What nonsensical drivel. Don’t we also know that a child is in the most danger from a non-biological parent figure? Haven’t we also seen in the more “primitive” societies a tendency toward polygamy? Doesn’t polygamy disenfranchise a large portion of the male population? Doesn’t this lead to increased violence? (See the book “The Better Angels of Our Nature”) In current society, female sexual infidelity to the pair bond results in a break up of the pair bond almost 2/3 of the time. Male sexual infidelity results in a break up 1/3 of the time. Male confidence in his parentage is critical to maintenance of support and protection of the children. (see earlier comment on single motherhood.)

    Again, I haven’t read the book, but it sounds like the arguments against child labor. (What’s the alternative?)

  14. JanNo Gravatar says:

    Perhaps they have a point. I would not be surprised if it turned out that the dominant cultural norm in sexuality is just that. The freedom philosopht took me through a similar discovery process in a few areas of live already.

    Anyway, it annoys me when the authors mention every few pages how free market is an agressive zero sum game. I am used to this when reading books written by mainstream intelectuals, however I would still prefer if they did not talk about things they seem to be quite ignorant about.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      Yes, I squirmed a couple of times when they knocked the free-market, but it only happened a couple of time in the beginning of the book. If you can make it past that part it really takes off in its own right.

  15. Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

    I still have a couple of hangups with the book.

    1. Paleolithic man may have had a lot of sex with a lot of different partners, but that’s not at all what I’m interested in. Sure, I may want to have sex with a lot of girls, but in all honesty, I’m only attracted to maybe 2% of the female population. Most girls I don’t find attractive at all.

    2. I really don’t see society heading towards anarcho-primitivism. It just doesn’t strike me as the future of mankind. Paleolithic man lived like they did for 200,000 years. Been there. Done that. There may be some definite cons about our current ways of living, but at least they are new and uncharted.

    That being said, there is still a lot to be taken from the book that sheds light on our human nature and probably helps us to discover our inner anarchist.

    • r3VOLutionRefugeeNo Gravatar says:

      1. I myself find it unlikely that I will feel like I need this. I’ve always been an independent loner, and would be extremely low maintenance in any relationship. But to my own surprise I’m completely open to the idea now, and I’ll have you know its entirely your fault.

      2. I don’t think its an either/or thing. If people want to shift from traditional families to small bands while abolishing the state, they don’t have to give up computers.

      By the way, I looked up these bonobo characters you mentioned. All I can say is holy crap. I mean, these guys can use Bic lighters and drive golf carts!

      http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write .html

  16. Paul BonneauNo Gravatar says:

    Too much generalization going on. It’s not whether “man” will go back to anarcho-primitivism or not. It’s whether individuals will decide to integrate some features of it into their lives or not, and for how long a period.

    As to sex, we have various conflicting tendencies toward that and many other aspects of life because we have different levels of brains. Even the lizard brain has its say in our behavior sometimes. Well, I think so anyway, but I’m no anthropologist so it’s just an opinion…

    BTW this sounds a bit like “The Lucifer Principle” a book I read some years back.

  17. Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

    I too want to find this book. Many years ago I was a member of “Loving Alternatives” a kind of group marriage support group. I learned a lot there and in living the lifestyle. But be warned: many social pioneers end up with an arrow in their back. Family and friends will likely not understand and castigate you. In particular, children and youth services take a very dim view of non-monogamistic families. I do agree that polyamory and anarchism fit together well. It is all about freedom of choice. That being said, it is emotionally difficult at first to see your mate with someone else. We are all possesive whether we realize it or not.

  18. MAMNo Gravatar says:

    Seems like there’s a lot of bullshit going on here. Especially with this diet thing.

    This whole “the primitive way of life was better” is just bullshit. If dieing at 20 and having no teeth seems good to you fine to each his own, I’d rather stay warm and live to be 60.

    I’d rather have the products that division of labour and specialization brings me.

    As far as polygamy is concerned again to each his own, though I would like to know who my partner(s) are sleeping with because there are a lot of nasty diseases out there… I’m not opposed to it par se I just don’t want to get syphilis.

    That being said at this point in my life I am attracted to very few women because most of the time they say stupid things and ruin their beauty. I not only want to think the girl is sexy I want to be able to hang out with her and have a conversation. I want a relationship with a person, not just tits and vagina (you can get that anywhere).

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      Actually, there is strong evidence that paleolithic man had great teeth and lived as long, if not longer, than modern humans.

      • MAMNo Gravatar says:

        Wisdom teeth exist because they at one point in our history they were necessary. At a young age Man lost their teeth wisdom teeth are there to replace them. That is their purpose, that is way they evolved.

        Also what evidence? I’m genuinely curious about this…

        • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

          I think it has to do with their high-protein diet. They ate a lot of meat which fortify things. They didn’t eat a lot of carbs and sugars. That’s why our teeth are so bad nowadays.That’s the theory anyways.

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.