Betty Dodson with Carlin Ross

Better Orgasms. Better World.

 0 items

• Login
• Join

Search this site:

Well Lilith
I watched the video clips on what we "know" about sexual attraction and found it was similar to what I understood UNTIL I read Sex at Dawn.
Now I would now ask:
Why do the researchers assume you can only love one person at a time when we clearly love more than one child at a time, more than one parent at a time, and more than one friend at a time? Is it "only" a cultural or economic assumption.
Why do we assume a woman wants to mate with only one male when she is ovulating when her body clearly tells a different story with her ability to mate with many in a short period?
And if sex with a number of lovers, and the ability to be responsive across her whole cycle, is part of creating a group with less aggression and more co-operation would there also be evolutionary benefits for her genes in such behaviour that out weighed the "mr right" theory. And would it make sense for researchers to take this observation into account when creating these theories?
 
And if child raising was shared in a group would the argument that she carries more of the child raising burden be rather a minor factor in her choice of partners, and hence of little significance in any theoretical development?
What if women controlled income and resources - would they then find that a man's attractiveness was not much related to his status after all?
Dear oh dear! - there is much in the videos that seems true (for instance attraction being related to scents and smells) but also so many conclusions that are likely based on wrong assumptions about the basic building blocks that are us.

You bring up some outstanding questions Fond Care. I think Ryan and Jetha the authors of Sex at Dawn would agree that much of how we look at sexuality and especially female sexuality is very determined by cultural blinders. As to loving more than one person at a time, well I think most of us do that all the time. However, I do believe that romantic love is different. I think genuine limerence (the first stage of the romantic love) can be very intense and obsessive, and I don't think it can be experienced with more than one person. On the other hand, I don't think it lasts all that long either. Helen Fisher argues no more than one to three years.

I think much of evolutionary psychology seems to believe that we women are far more monogamous than men, that we are basically looking to trade pussy for a meal ticket, and that this is the natural order of things. I don't agree with that. In many cultures, women have HAD  to trade pussy for economic support because men controlled the economy. I also have often wondered why women would be so in need of male support (the traditional view of evolutionary psychology) for child rearing in  a group oriented hunter gather society in which everything is shared? Doesn't she have the resources and support of the entire group? Isn't that the point of such arrangements? They seem to be portraying an image of a helpless female encumbered by a vulnerable child who frankly just can't make it without a man. I find this very insulting.

 
Lilith
You set me thinking about limerance and "romantic love" when you suggest "romantic love is different" and you "don't think it can be experienced with more than one person".
Can we be obsessed with more than one thing at a time? I don't know. And if not, what about when the obsession is with the whole football team?
And then, what if the person you are obsessed with wants only a little sex but not enough to satisfy you, perhaps only raising your appetite? If he "loves" you why would he want to leave you unsatisfied and then become possessive when you get more sex elsewhere? It seems a little less healthy, seems that he wants to "own" you.
So I wonder, is the idea of besotted, exclusive, romantic love a cultural thing as well? (It is for sure an American fetish!).
In some cultures it might be considered selfish to insist on exclusivity between the limerance partners. I can see it being regarded as leading to undesireable results if it leads to less sharing or more conflict in other parts of the life of the tribe or group.
The intensity of limerance almost amounts to psychotic behaviour that we would not accept from, for instance, gamblers, but we do accept from business obsessed folk. Why does our culture think its so wonderful for lovers to be obsessed - In films and TV the presentation of we almost demand it from lovers and it is portrayed as an excuse for all sorts of bad decision making?
And then what about in the situation where there is an intense bond between two people but it is a non sexual attraction? Does that mean both parties should be non sexual?
So I wonder if maybe there are some assumptions being made by Helen Fisher and other researchers about this state of romantic limerance, and maybe their assumptions have strong cultural elements that are not so easy to escape from.
Not that I have answers, just questions.
Like your posts!