Origins of Sex and Power

If Freud is correct in this postulate of his then humans are born in a state much like that which was considered natural by ancient societies; specifically the ancient Greek and Roman empires. And it would mean that everyone is bisexual.

en.wikipedia.org...

Freud was revolutionary and had insightful ideas; though he also had a lot of screwed up thoughts about women, his mother, and sex in general.


I find myself and many other males strangely fascinated with bisexual females.

I propose that Freud was somewhat correct in his theory about bisexuality.
Though it’s more to do with ancient humans mating during times of famine and/or crises.
And it relates to the survival mechanism.

The males who were thriving would have access to more than one female partner at a time. This would mean that the most successful men in terms of spreading the most seed during times of survival would always have a pair of females.
They could be the same two for life or they could be interchangeable.
So this , then , is the ideal hunter/gatherer provider archetype within our collective; he was real. He was a part of our genes and our history.
It is this man, or the few men, who survive after decimating ancient wars to procreate with populations full of women.
This was to survive and it’s somehow genetically resonant.
Many guys still look at the ménage a trois with two females as the ultimate sexual experience.

Perhaps it is symbolic of the ultimate survivor / seed sower / power position?
Intelligent responses only , please.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by dragonsmusic]

Frued was a sick, crooked, twisted freak. He only did sessions with upper-class women, and slept with most of them.

FASCINATING thread topic.
Freud could be interpreted many ways , but the fact that the true male fantasy seems to be two women has endured the ages.
Duly noted that as our sexuality rises in society, there is much more of a bisexual incidence for females now.
If you don't mind, I'm going to include the info on your thread here from The Kinsey reports, for slight comparison, and to better the info.
en.wikipedia.org...
S&F

[edit on 28-12-2009 by AccessDenied]

Originally posted by AccessDenied
FASCINATING thread topic.
Freud could be interpreted many ways , but the fact that the true male fantasy seems to be two women has endured the ages.
Duly noted that as our sexuality rises in society, there is much more of a bisexual incidence for females now.
If you don't mind, I'm going to include the info on your thread here from The Kinsey reports, for slight comparison, and to better the info.
en.wikipedia.org...
S&F

[edit on 28-12-2009 by AccessDenied]

Much obliged Access.
Glad you like it.

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
Frued was a sick, crooked, twisted freak. He only did sessions with upper-class women, and slept with most of them.

Did you care to maybe comment on the thread topic ?

I think the obsession with power relating to sex is that not only is it a way to "cheat" a positive spiritual energy charge. Those people you see with 10 wives etc (through out time) was a form of not just greed and lust, but of Eugenics. Keep it in the blood line eh?

EDIT: Read this book: Sex, Symbols and the Stars
(Symbols, Sex, and the Stars in Popular Beliefs: An Outline of the Origins of Moon and Sun Worship, Astrology, Sex Symbolism, Mystic Meaning of Numbers, the Cabala, and Many Popular Customs, Myth (Paperback))

[edit on 28/12/2009 by the_denv]

Originally posted by the_denv
I think the obsession with power relating to sex is that not only is it a way to "cheat" a positive spiritual energy charge. Those people you see with 10 wives etc (through out time) was a form of not just greed and lust, but of Eugenics. Keep it in the blood line eh?

EDIT: Read this book: Sex, Symbols and the Stars
(Symbols, Sex, and the Stars in Popular Beliefs: An Outline of the Origins of Moon and Sun Worship, Astrology, Sex Symbolism, Mystic Meaning of Numbers, the Cabala, and Many Popular Customs, Myth (Paperback))

[edit on 28/12/2009 by the_denv]

Hey dude. Thanks for that input.
It makes me wonder about the survivors of these ancient wars actually being kept in similar blood lines; if that makes sense.

Bisexual women are a turn off. Just my personal opinion, as a hetrosexual man. I don't understand these sweeping generalizations...

Originally posted by SteveR
Bisexual women are a turn off. Just my personal opinion, as a hetrosexual man. I don't understand these sweeping generalizations...

I'm not making sweeping generalizations.
I understand that it's not every guy's thing.
Where is the sweeping generalization?
Also, what makes them a turnoff?

While I deplore the foul stench of narrow-mindedness, ignorance and bigotry (not to mention damned lies) emanating from the second post in this thread, it is certainly true that Freud's psychology is deeply suspect from a scientific point of view.

Freud did little clinical research and did not test his ideas rigorously. He created some brilliant metaphors for the human condition, which is why he is still regarded by many as one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century. However, even the greatest thinkers need not necessarily be right in the conclusions they draw, and this was often the case with Freud.

Modern psychology, which is strongly influenced by neuroscience, ethology and evolutionary biology, has little time for Freud. It is true that the psychoanalysis he pioneered remains popular with bourgeois folk, but I hazard this is due to a feelgood factor associated with the 'talking cure'--and the fact that people have dirty minds--rather than any real clinical benefit.

* * *

As to your sexual speculations: human beings throughout history have regarded their own culture's arrangements as 'normal' and deplored others'. There is certainly nothing particularly normal or natural about Ancient Greek pederasty. In ancient times, powerful men tended to form harems because they could; such a man might sleep with one, two or as many women at a time as he might choose to, or could afford. The dark obverse of this custom was that large numbers of ordinary men had to do without women at all, or at best with occasional adulterous liasons, hasty encounters with prostitutes and--let's state facts--the odd rape. Sex with other men was often an acceptable outlet when women were unavailable.

Where rich men have harems, societies grow violent, repressive, warlike and viciously competitive. There also tends to be an increase in both male homosexual activity, especially pederasty, and condemnation of homosexual behaviour.

However--from an evo-bio point of view--harem formation is quite normal. In many social species, subordinate males rarely or never have a chance to mate; the alpha male gets all the nookie, and keeps it.

Leaving aside the interesting harem question, normal male human sexual behaviour seems to be serial polygyny--one woman at a time, but several over a lifetime, with episodes of opportunistic promiscuity. The female pattern mirrors this, though with a tropism towards longer relationships punctuated by brief episodes of adultery. The variance between male and female reproductive strategies (and respective physical size and strength) explains these differences quite neatly.

Male homosexuality is almost certainly passed from mother to son (like male pattern baldness); if this is true we may infer that having a gay son carries a survival benefit for mothers. An alternative explanation is the 'gay uncle' hypothesis, which proposes that children enjoy a selective benefit by having a homosexual relative.

Lesbianism is rather more problematic; it is rarely or never seen among animals (as far as I know), and scientific explanations for its prevalance are hard to come by. Sadly, most of the literature on the subject is politically motivated and therefore untrustworthy; the Wikipedia entry is typical.

* * *

For reference:

A balanced account of Freud's life and work from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Wikipedia on Freud's legacy.

Wikipedia on Biology and sexual orientation

[edit on 29/12/09 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
While I deplore the foul stench of narrow-mindedness, ignorance and bigotry (not to mention damned lies) emanating from the second post in this thread, it is certainly true that Freud's psychology is deeply suspect from a scientific point of view.

Freud did little clinical research and did not test his ideas rigorously. He created some brilliant metaphors for the human condition, which is why he is still regarded by many as one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century. However, even the greatest thinkers need not necessarily be right in the conclusions they draw, and this was often the case with Freud.

Modern psychology, which is strongly influenced by neuroscience, ethology and evolutionary biology, has little time for Freud. It is true that the psychoanalysis he pioneered remains popular with bourgeois folk, but I hazard this is due to a feelgood factor associated with the 'talking cure'--and the fact that people have dirty minds--rather than any real clinical benefit.

* * *

As to your sexual speculations: human beings throughout history have regarded their own culture's arrangements as 'normal' and deplored others'. There is certainly nothing particularly normal or natural about Ancient Greek pederasty. In ancient times, powerful men tended to form harems because they could; such a man might sleep with one, two or as many women at a time as he might choose to, or could afford. The dark obverse of this custom was that large numbers of ordinary men had to do without women at all, or at best with occasional adulterous liasons, hasty encounters with prostitutes and--let's state facts--the odd rape. Sex with other men was often an acceptable outlet when women were unavailable.

Where rich men have harems, societies grow violent, repressive, warlike and viciously competitive. There also tends to be an increase in both male homosexual activity, especially pederasty, and condemnation of homosexual behaviour.

However--from an evo-bio point of view--harem formation is quite normal. In many social species, subordinate males rarely or never have a chance to mate; the alpha male gets all the nookie, and keeps it.

Leaving aside the interesting harem question, normal male human sexual behaviour seems to be serial polygyny--one woman at a time, but several over a lifetime, with episodes of opportunistic promiscuity. The female pattern mirrors this, though with a tropism towards longer relationships punctuated by brief episodes of adultery. The variance between male and female reproductive strategies (and respective physical size and strength) explains these differences quite neatly.

Male homosexuality is almost certainly passed from mother to son (like male pattern baldness); if this is true we may infer that having a gay son carries a survival benefit for mothers. An alternative explanation is the 'gay uncle' hypothesis, which proposes that children enjoy a selective benefit by having a homosexual relative.

Lesbianism is rather more problematic; it is rarely or never seen among animals (as far as I know), and scientific explanations for its prevalance are hard to come by. Sadly, most of the literature on the subject is politically motivated and therefore untrustworthy; the Wikipedia entry is typical.

* * *

For reference:

A balanced account of Freud's life and work from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Wikipedia on Freud's legacy.

Wikipedia on Biology and sexual orientation

[edit on 29/12/09 by Astyanax]

Freud has his problems; which is I why I touched on that in the thread.This thread is about much more than this.
Do you have a specific opinion about the thread?
Does it bother you?

reply to post by dragonsmusic


This is a very interesting subject and I have enjoyed reading about Freud's research into this. I see your point about two bisexual women being possibly the ultimate male fantasy and it's roots in the hunter archetype (which I was talking about with a close friend just two nights ago, weirdly enough), but I suspect that there is perhaps another layer of modern meaning now attached to this scenario....that of the sexually liberated woman.

Although I don't give the free love attitudes of the '60's much weight in terms of true freedom for women and their sexual expression, I do acknowledge that they were possibly a starting point for the more equal expression of sexuality we're moving towards now. Despite the fact that it's now insanely trendy for girls to be with other girls, at least at some point in their relationship history, I really believe that many women...many more women than realise it....are genuinely bisexual. Our learned patterns and past emotional traumas can block off whole areas of expression, and perhaps when we learn to be honest about who and what we like, this is the natural state for us.

Astynax's point about the benefits of a gay son to the mother's survival will also hold true of the lesbian members of a society...more healthy, non-breeding females (and their girlfriends! ) to help raise and protect the children, without the considerable risks of childbirth to worry about.

I think a lot of this has to do with evolutionary pressures. Both sexes are designed by evolution to ensure the success of their genetics in different ways. Males have evolved to spread their genetics as far and as wide as possible, as it ensures the greatest chance of their offspring surviving to pass on their own genes. Females however have evolved to take one long term partner who can provide for them and their offspring, while having affairs with as many other dominant males as possible to ensure the offspring that the first male is providing for have the greatest chance of attaining a dominant gene combination. In other words both cuckoldry, and the wandering male eye are evolutionary strategies designed to ensure the male/females genes have the greatest chance of surviving. Its also one of the reasons I find the idea of monogamous marriage so laughable, both partners are programmed to cheat, just in different ways.

Interestingly harem formation enables both reproductive strategies, as the male is able to spread his seed more easily to multiple females, while the females will find it easier to both engage in and mask their liaisons with different males.

[edit on 12/29/2009 by Doglord]

Freud did not have access to the knowledge that we do now, and as a psychologist, he necessarily determined that the human is a blank slate at birth.

We now know differently, that Genetics predispose people to certain conditions (Not discounting Environmental Factors, but adding Genetics to the mix) and make those actions and behaviors more likely.

The thought that all humans are born Bisexual is a childish theory, that MANY different factors debunk.

Sexual Hormones, Testosterone, and Estrogen necessarily make the human of whatever sex, desire copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

Occasionally, this is not the case... but deviation from Heterosexuality is the Exception, or the species goes extinct.

Natural selection precludes this sort of "Inherent" bisexuality, due to "Survival of the Fittest" actions on Genetics.


As far as Lesbianism, I would agree that it is nessecarily linked to the earlier sexual Hierarchies of human (and primate) society.

With the "Alpha" having supreme sexual access (There is your Harem), and all other males being cast to the wayside (So to speak)

Females are necessarily Hypergamous in this fashion, (as an attempt to secure provisions, alpha genes, and social status upon their offspring)

en.wikipedia.org...

The Biological drive for the Sexes are much different.

Males are naturaly Polygamous, and Females are naturally Hypergamous.

en.wikipedia.org...


This manifests in men as a desire to have multiple female partners at a time, giving rise to the "Lesbian" theme... two girls... getting themselves ready for you.... Ya know? IT is also a fundamental foundation of the "Harem", that all of your "Wives" get along with each other, as opposed to devolving into a squawking hen-house of Auditory pain and suffering, treachery, and madness.


For Females, it is different... Their biological Hypergamy manifests in fantasies of "The Prince Charming" or the "Knight on a white horse"

The female instinct is to Seek the BEST man, and get him to commit to her.

And since ALL females would seek the SAME best man, the harem would form itself.

Unfortunately, both of these instincts, while suited for animal level nomadic tribes...

Are completely counterproductive, and ultimately destructive to what we would term "Civilization"


The entire problem is that of Paternity.

Maternity is always a KNOWN factor, as no woman has to wonder if she is the mother of her child. (Rate hospital mix ups notwithstanding)

Paternity, on the other hand, is NOT a known factor.

Civilization itself is fundamentally BUILT upon the Knowledge of paternity.

(Yes, that would make Civilization and Patriarchy one in the same)

So that the men know that their efforts are going to their own genetic offspring, they therefore work harder to build a better world for them.

In a society where the vestigial instincts of human beings are allowed to take hold, you get a two fold effect on society.

1. Females seek only the "Best of the Best", and leave many men without access to reproduction.

2. Most Men no longer work for the betterment of society, since they do not have a future in it.

I'm pretty sure that you can see both of these effects at work in western society today.


-Edrick

Originally posted by caitlinfae
reply to post by dragonsmusic

 

This is a very interesting subject and I have enjoyed reading about Freud's research into this. I see your point about two bisexual women being possibly the ultimate male fantasy and it's roots in the hunter archetype (which I was talking about with a close friend just two nights ago, weirdly enough), but I suspect that there is perhaps another layer of modern meaning now attached to this scenario....that of the sexually liberated woman.

Although I don't give the free love attitudes of the '60's much weight in terms of true freedom for women and their sexual expression, I do acknowledge that they were possibly a starting point for the more equal expression of sexuality we're moving towards now. Despite the fact that it's now insanely trendy for girls to be with other girls, at least at some point in their relationship history, I really believe that many women...many more women than realise it....are genuinely bisexual. Our learned patterns and past emotional traumas can block off whole areas of expression, and perhaps when we learn to be honest about who and what we like, this is the natural state for us.

Astynax's point about the benefits of a gay son to the mother's survival will also hold true of the lesbian members of a society...more healthy, non-breeding females (and their girlfriends!

) to help raise and protect the children, without the considerable risks of childbirth to worry about.

I'm glad you see that point about "two bisexual women being possibly the ultimate male fantasy and it's roots in the hunter archetype (which I was talking about with a close friend just two nights ago, weirdly enough), "

That's synched up now isn't it ?
Females strike me as being innately bisexual.
Though my one lesbian friend who I mentioned this to did not like the idea very much.
I have mentioned this to a few straight females who have not liked the idea very much either

Though in terms of the big picture it's honestly so attractive to see two pretty women hold hands as they get up from the bar or wherever and walk to the bathroom together.
Watching two attractive females make out is even more of a turnon, though I digress.
It is something primal that gets pulled up. Something ancient I think; hence my making this thread.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by dragonsmusic]

Originally posted by Edrick
Freud did not have access to the knowledge that we do now, and as a psychologist, he necessarily determined that the human is a blank slate at birth.

We now know differently, that Genetics predispose people to certain conditions (Not discounting Environmental Factors, but adding Genetics to the mix) and make those actions and behaviors more likely.

The thought that all humans are born Bisexual is a childish theory, that MANY different factors debunk.

Sexual Hormones, Testosterone, and Estrogen necessarily make the human of whatever sex, desire copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

Occasionally, this is not the case... but deviation from Heterosexuality is the Exception, or the species goes extinct.

Natural selection precludes this sort of "Inherent" bisexuality, due to "Survival of the Fittest" actions on Genetics.


As far as Lesbianism, I would agree that it is nessecarily linked to the earlier sexual Hierarchies of human (and primate) society.

With the "Alpha" having supreme sexual access (There is your Harem), and all other males being cast to the wayside (So to speak)

Females are necessarily Hypergamous in this fashion, (as an attempt to secure provisions, alpha genes, and social status upon their offspring)

en.wikipedia.org...

The Biological drive for the Sexes are much different.

Males are naturaly Polygamous, and Females are naturally Hypergamous.

en.wikipedia.org...


This manifests in men as a desire to have multiple female partners at a time, giving rise to the "Lesbian" theme... two girls... getting themselves ready for you.... Ya know? IT is also a fundamental foundation of the "Harem", that all of your "Wives" get along with each other, as opposed to devolving into a squawking hen-house of Auditory pain and suffering, treachery, and madness.


For Females, it is different... Their biological Hypergamy manifests in fantasies of "The Prince Charming" or the "Knight on a white horse"

The female instinct is to Seek the BEST man, and get him to commit to her.

And since ALL females would seek the SAME best man, the harem would form itself.

Unfortunately, both of these instincts, while suited for animal level nomadic tribes...

Are completely counterproductive, and ultimately destructive to what we would term "Civilization"


The entire problem is that of Paternity.

Maternity is always a KNOWN factor, as no woman has to wonder if she is the mother of her child. (Rate hospital mix ups notwithstanding)

Paternity, on the other hand, is NOT a known factor.

Civilization itself is fundamentally BUILT upon the Knowledge of paternity.

(Yes, that would make Civilization and Patriarchy one in the same)

So that the men know that their efforts are going to their own genetic offspring, they therefore work harder to build a better world for them.

In a society where the vestigial instincts of human beings are allowed to take hold, you get a two fold effect on society.

1. Females seek only the "Best of the Best", and leave many men without access to reproduction.

2. Most Men no longer work for the betterment of society, since they do not have a future in it.

I'm pretty sure that you can see both of these effects at work in western society today.


-Edrick

"The thought that all humans are born Bisexual is a childish theory, that MANY different factors debunk. "
Agreed , E.

Though I do think that sexuality can be shaped and/or manipulated by a society or a culture more easily than most of us realize.
The ancient Greeks and Romans amaze us with their philosophy, architecture, and literature; just to mention a few.
Yet both genders were encouraged to be bisexual.
My theory is that bisexuality only takes place naturally in females and that it is based on some of the ideas that I have mentioned.
Male bisexualilty, however; is something different.
It is not something that exists naturally as a survival mechanism.
Hope that makes sense.
What you said about the female ensuring alpha traits is mindblowing , man.
I have wondered about that for a long time and you sort of it put that piece together for me. Thanks.
My own theories about the alpha are that there was only an alpha MALE in the jungle. And so, the only way an alpha FEMALE could exist is if she were mating with an alpha male.
Once she is no longer with the alpha male , her status as alpha female is often diminished in the wild.
Humans are not that much different. And western society bends and shapes us.

reply to post by dragonsmusic


I think it is something very primal....when we get past the conditioning of thinking that we should all just belong to one other and cannot interact with other humans, we enjoy it very much. Female bodies are generally much more attractive and more sensual to be around anyway, although there are exceptions of course.... There is also the issue of allowing ourselves to have sexual feelings and experiences that are benign in terms of risking pregnancy, so if Hunter Gatherer Man wants his woman to be happy, and amuse himself at the same time, wouldn't he encourage this behaviour to make sure his was the only way for her to conceive? Maybe for both of them?

The only reason I can think of for women to resist these ideas again goes back to conditioning....we are taught to feel that they are bad places to be...this bisexuality nonsense and the whole multiple partners thingy....and that to be bisexual is just greedy. Shame really. Expression is just that, and affection is nothing more complicated, but that's just my evolved pagan view of it.

Originally posted by caitlinfae
reply to post by dragonsmusic

 

I think it is something very primal....when we get past the conditioning of thinking that we should all just belong to one other and cannot interact with other humans, we enjoy it very much. Female bodies are generally much more attractive and more sensual to be around anyway, although there are exceptions of course....

There is also the issue of allowing ourselves to have sexual feelings and experiences that are benign in terms of risking pregnancy, so if Hunter Gatherer Man wants his woman to be happy, and amuse himself at the same time, wouldn't he encourage this behaviour to make sure his was the only way for her to conceive? Maybe for both of them?

The only reason I can think of for women to resist these ideas again goes back to conditioning....we are taught to feel that they are bad places to be...this bisexuality nonsense and the whole multiple partners thingy....and that to be bisexual is just greedy. Shame really. Expression is just that, and affection is nothing more complicated, but that's just my evolved pagan view of it.

Your evolved pagan view of it. LMAO
That's awesome.
Yes he would definitely encourage that behavior in order for her /both of them to conceive. Excellent ideas!
And if being with him afforded them alpha female status , which is likely in this scenario , then each of the females would want to do as much as they could to keep his attention so to speak, in order to maintain that status.

reply to post by dragonsmusic


I'm trying to avoid turning this into a porn thread and getting myself banned, but it would seem to work in their favour too...the girls I mean...it would be an easy way to control him, if that's what they want to do, as well as maintain their own Alpha status. Would sex be enough to do this in primitive societies? It would certainly work in ours, given the right personalities involved and women ruthless enough to use it. Maybe bisexuality in females was status dependent. Maybe the power was really with the females, and Mr Hunter was put where they wanted him? Maybe they were more inclined to be with their own sex and simply used him for babies and yet more power as the mothers of his heirs?

Sorry....bad faery surfacing.....my very bad.....

[edit on 29-12-2009 by caitlinfae]

reply to post by caitlinfae


I know that you were responding to Dragonmusic, but I felt that I had to interject.

Civilization is the condition of Intelligence overcoming Instinct.


Instincts, such as the aforementioned "Hunter Gatherer" sexual preferences of men and women were ingrained by the long process of "Survival of the Fittest", in that for the type of society (Loosely organized nomadic) they were the best behaviors to ensure survival.

Unfortunately, these instincts are... shall we say, Outdated.

As they are perfectly fine for a near animalistic level of existance, they are completely destructive to a more civilized social organization.

That being, Specialization.

Gender is in and of itself, a form of specialization... in that women provide the nurturing, and men provide the sustinance and protection.

Advanced civilization is also specialized in a similar manner, although the breakdown of the specialization is not along gender lines, as it is along area of expertise.

Agriculture, Blacksmith, Miner, Boyer, Potter, Cobbler, etc, etc, etc...

The reason for specialization and division of labor is because the complicated nature of our technology.

The requirements on an individuals time to learn and master one field of study nessecarily precludes the mastery of many others that may be required for society.

Thus, different people specialize in different traits.


The only way that this specialization works is the fundamental unwritten compact that is the cohesive force of civilization.

We cooperate, instead of competing.


The core motivation behind this specialization is mutual benefit. (As is the same of the gender specialization)


The Instincts that we still have, are the outdated competition for resources that our ancestors used to survive, and thrive.


This "Conditioning" that you say causes women to reject their instinctual desires is called "Civilization"


Our sexual drives, are incompatible with Civilization, as they were formed in a VERY different environment.

Evolution, even of behaviors takes hundreds and thousands of generations to change.

Our civilization has not existed for long enough to take hold in our genetics, and thus, these instincts to "Make Beasts out of ourselves" remain.


In order to understand this completely, you would have to delve into understanding Governmental Theory, Economic Theory, Decision Theory, Hereditary Genetics, and Human Psychology.


Suffice it to say, if we did not "Pair Bond" as a species, we would not be "Civilized"

Literally.

-Edrick