The crossover between Polyamory, Swinging and Sex work

Is there any crossover between Sex work, Swinging and Polyamory?

  • Yes, there is some crossover between all 3 categories

    Votes: 9 40.9%
  • There is only crossover between sex work and swinging

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • There is only crossover between sex work and polyamory

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sex work stands alone; there is no crossover

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • Total voters
    22

Scott

New member
As some may know (See: Poly Map), I and others believe there is some crossover between the categories of Polyamory, Swinging and Sex Work. I recently read an article that I think solidifies these connections indirectly, while also making the case that Sex Work should be decriminalized in more countries for the good of everyone.

I'm Canadian, so my slant will be more on the Canadian side of things, but I do include an research paper published in the United Kingdom as well. I'll start with that...

The research paper involves 50 sex worker clients, and can be seen here in PDF format:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/Docume...l sex Sanders Sociology 2008 42(3) 400-17.pdf

It brings up various aspects of concerning sex workers and their clients. I found that some of its points regarding emotional intimacy were quite interesting, as many people seem to think that emotional intimacy can't be involved in sex work. I understand that some sex workers do indeed like to distance themselves emotionally from their clients and that some clients also want to distance themselves emotionally from the sex workers they frequent, and that some may see this as a good thing, just as some believe that there should be a certain distance between other professionals and their clients, such as doctors, dentists, etc. This being said, the study makes it clear that not everyone feels this way. In its conclusion, it brings up how the current laws are detrimental to society as a whole.

The study was done and is specifically geared for the United Kingdom, but I think that many of the points raised are universal. Here are some excerpts that I thought were particularly interesting:
Page 406:
It has been identified that some men are attracted to the temporal relationship available through commercial sex because of the lack of emotional attachment, the ability to suspend ‘normal’ expectations of the male sex role and the type of relationship that is free from societal norms and rituals (Atchison et al., 1998).
 However, regulars were less inclined to be motivated by these features of commercial sex, but instead sought out sex workers with whom they could develop a more in-depth and holistic type of relationship​
**
Page 407:
The ‘girlfriend experience’, which usually involves kissing, caressing and other sensual acts (rather than brief sex acts), is sought by many men,
and is met with triumph and congratulations on message boards when a clien reveals he experienced the ‘GFE’. Contrasts were made between the commercial sexual experience where men experience sex workers as emotionally distant during the sex acts, to other experiences of ‘natural’ chemistry and sensual curiosity:
If it’s a situation where it develops quite sexually naturally, then you sort of explore each other’s bodies. But if it’s where for obvious reasons the girl is just doing a job and isn’t sort of connected, it is cold … If you’re not getting much of a response from the girl then you feel bad. (Craig, 38, sales, singles)​

Page 414 (Conclusion):
Commerce is but a manifestation of the more general exchanges that occur 
within human sexual and intimate relationships. Some systems refuse to endorse sex and commerce as a legitimate relationship that should be facilitated, protected or even acknowledged. Other systems take a serious position on the social role of commercial sex and the ordinary characteristics of the relationships, preferring to provide an avenue where these relationships can be established with minimal harm and destruction. The relationships between sex workers and clients can be nurturing, respectful and mutual. This experience of the commercial relationship can
enhance the quality of life of men who buy sex (see Sanders, 2007b) whilst at the same time provide sex workers with safe customers who will not breach the contract through sexual misconduct, financial exploitation (e.g. not paying), abusive language, or aggressive behaviour. A system that recognizes the emotional consumption that is integral to some forms of commercial sex and the possibilities for emotional mutuality between sex worker and client could be a framework that distils negative images of women as disposable victims and clients as unruly sexual beasts to be controlled. The current climate of criminalizing men who buy sex
(Brooks Gordon, 2005) and the impetus to block a regulated indoor market
(Sanders, 2007a) prevent policy intervening to reinforce the male client role as an accountable active participant who has responsibilities to himself, the sex worker, other sexual partners and a wider responsibility to respect women in all areas of society. Policy designed to manage sex work markets should be informed by evidence that understands the micro-relationships that form commercial sex alongside the fluidity of male and female sexualities.​
 

AutumnalTone

New member
This topic has been moved to the Fireplace because we don't believe it to be about polyamory.

The commercial nature of the relationship is what removes it from the realm of polyamory--if the relationship wouldn't have arisen without the commercial aspect and only continues because of the commerce, then it falls outside the purview of polyamory. (Some may argue that it does fall under the rubric of polyamory; for the purposes of this site, it does not.)
 

Scott

New member
This topic has been moved to the Fireplace because we don't believe it to be about polyamory.

The commercial nature of the relationship is what removes it from the realm of polyamory-- if the relationship wouldn't have arisen without the commercial aspect and only continues because of the commerce, then it falls outside the purview of polyamory. (Some may argue that it does fall under the rubric of polyamory; for the purposes of this site, it does not.)

I'm glad you recognize that this issue isn't settled within the polyamory community. Are you saying that if money changes between 2 people involved in an intimate relationship, it is therefore commercial? If that were the case, a lot of relationships not defined as sex work would be labelled as sex work. The line between sex work and regular relationships can become paper thin. I think that the article I linked to in the OP (Male Sexual Scripts: Intimacy, Sexuality and Pleasure in the Purchase of Commercial Sex) makes this clear.
 

feelyunicorn

New member
I haven`t read the whole survey/post yet. But, I am available to be interviewed if you wish.

I have been a long term john, in two different countries, and I have had full-blown (non-pay) relationships with about 4 sex workers, and about 20 times as much for pay.

I have recently felt unrequited feelings for a sex worker, that are making me slow down my 'mongering.'

Nevertheless, I still feel uninterested in traditional dating and the gender roles thereof. And, with few exceptions, women appear uninterested in dating me.

So, it`s been a heart-wrenching bind.

I`d be prepared to answer any questions about the legal, economic, and emotional/psychological aspects of sex work, as well as practical aspects such as logistics, STDs concerns, etc. I have also spoken to many sex workers about the above, so I`ve been exposed to some of their perspectives.

Edit: I would also say that sex work is highly co-dependent upon the institution of marriage, but won`t say more for now.

Edit: It may also have none other than evolutionary/biological reasons for being, as well.
 
Last edited:

Scott

New member
I haven`t read the whole survey/post yet. But, I am available to be interviewed if you wish.

Cool... although I admit that I haven't actually developed a questionaire yet ;-). in the OP, I was quoting from a study done by Teela Sanders; she's the one who interviewed the 50 Johns. As far as I know, she's done with that study, but others could do more (maybe even me, laugh :)).

I have been a long term john, in two different countries, and I have had full-blown (non-pay) relationships with about 4 sex workers, and about 20 times as much for pay.

Interesting.

I have recently felt unrequited feelings for a sex worker, that are making me slow down my 'mongering.'

I recently had feelings for a sex worker as well.. she happened to also identify as poly, which is probably why I decided to make this thread to begin with.

Nevertheless, I still feel uninterested in traditional dating and the gender roles thereof. And, with few exceptions, women appear uninterested in dating me.

So, it`s been a heart-wrenching bind.

I think I know how that goes, laugh :).

I`d be prepared to answer any questions about the legal, economic, and emotional/psychological aspects of sex work, as well as practical aspects such as logistics, STDs concerns, etc. I have also spoken to many sex workers about the above, so I`ve been exposed to some of their perspectives.

Cool.

Edit: I would also say that sex work is highly co-dependent upon the institution of marriage, but won`t say more for now.

Could you say more in a PM? I'm interested in hearing what you have to say on this...

Edit: It may also have none other than evolutionary/biological reasons for being, as well.

After having read the first 50 pages or so of a book that is generally highly recommended in poly circles, Sex at Dawn, I found that I agreed with the author that the reason that prostitution is so prevalent in modern society has a lot to do with the society that we're in. I spoke about all of this in more detail in a thread in another forum.
 

feelyunicorn

New member
I`ll say it right here. And, having read the link you posted, Natja was making a similar point in your thread in that forum.

I do think prostitution is the outcome of social monogamy. Social monogamy requires that sex outside of marriage be had hidden from your partner. And, that is one of the biggest services prostitutes offer: privacy. It also requires that women be prudish (otherwise, how would she honor monogamous vows?), and self-entitled (men have to jump through numerous hoops to get the pussy) in order to be deemed desirable marriage material. Not exactly what makes a woman fun in bed...more demand created for hookers.

I also feel marriage to be a long-term, public, monogamous, sort of prostitution. It`s a parallel institution.

And, finally, if what many of the whores I`ve been with have said (as well as, surveys) is true, the vast majority of johns are married men.

Finally2, were it not for social monogamy, I would assume sex would be more widely available to men, and therefore prostitution would become redundant.

I pay because I don`t want to play the gender pursue, date, & marry game (which, is also paid). But I make no mistake about prostitution being a precarious substitute, for what I wish were polyamorous, reciprocal, non-pay relationships with women.

To that extent, I feel the prostitution/marriage complex is the biologically determined (the species still needs it more than individuals who think of child-rearing as secondary), and that full polyamorous reciprocity is none other than mutation.

-----------
Edit: I should say it`s encouraging to have this exchange with a thoughtful person who`s had similar experiences to mine. I am also encouraged by the fact that your threads seem to be given fair consideration in both polyamory forums. That is so much more than can be said for the hypocritical response you get in mainstream circles.

Do you have (a) partner(s)?
 
Last edited:

Scott

New member
I`ll say it right here. And, having read the link you posted, Natja was making a similar point in your thread in that forum.

I do think prostitution is the outcome of social monogamy. Social monogamy requires that sex outside of marriage be had hidden from your partner. And, that is one of the biggest services prostitutes offer: privacy. It also requires that women be prudish (otherwise, how would she honor monogamous vows?), and self-entitled (men have to jump through numerous hoops to get the pussy) in order to be deemed desirable marriage material. Not exactly what makes a woman fun in bed...more demand created for hookers.

I also feel marriage to be a long-term, public, monogamous, sort of prostitution. It`s a parallel institution.

Very interesting points. An article in the blog of an ex sex worker said something quite similar:
marriage v prostitution..good girl-bad girl!

And, finally, if what many of the whores I`ve been with have said (as well as, surveys) is true, the vast majority of johns are married men.

I've heard something similar from a sex worker; that 80% of clients are cheating on someone. This is a field where anecdotal evidence is king, so few studies have been done on this, but she seemed to be someone who knew more then many on the subject, and even provided me with some good online material to look at.

Finally2, were it not for social monogamy, I would assume sex would be more widely available to men, and therefore prostitution would become redundant.

Very good point.

I pay because I don`t want to play the gender pursue, date, & marry game (which, is also paid).

Aye.

But I make no mistake about prostitution being a precarious substitute, for what I wish were polyamorous, reciprocal, non-pay relationships with women.

Agreed. That being said, I think I understand why there are many more female sex workers then male sex workers and why women are generally more interested in the marriage game then men (it would seem to me that the fact that she generally walks off with a fair amount of money the man generally had if things don't go well is probably a part of it); Sex at Dawn, a book that many poly people I've met have highly recommended (and that I've now read a part of myself) put it this way:

****
we argue that women’s seemingly
consistent preference for men with access to wealth is not a
result of innate evolutionary programming, as the standard
model asserts, but simply a behavioral adaptation to a world
in which men control a disproportionate share of the world’s
resources. As we’ll explore in detail, before the advent of
agriculture a hundred centuries ago, women typically had as
much access to food, protection, and social support as did
men. We’ll see that upheavals in human societies resulting
from the shift to settled living in agricultural communities
brought radical changes to women’s ability to survive.
Suddenly, women lived in a world where they had to barter
their reproductive capacity for access to the resources and
protection they needed to survive. But these conditions are
very different from those in which our species had been
evolving previously.
****

To that extent, I feel the prostitution/marriage complex is the biologically determined (the species still needs it more than individuals who think of child-rearing as secondary), and that full polyamorous reciprocity is none other than mutation.

Again, Sex at Dawn says that it's the reverse. Here's another excerpt that I found to be quite intriguing:

****************************
If you spend time with the primates closest to human beings,
you’ll see female chimps having intercourse dozens of times
per day, with most or all of the willing males, and rampant
bonobo group sex that leaves everyone relaxed and maintains
intricate social networks. Explore contemporary human
beings’ lust for particular kinds of pornography or our
notorious difficulties with long-term sexual monogamy and
you’ll soon stumble over relics of our hypersexual ancestors.

Our bodies echo the same story. The human male has testicles
far larger than any monogamous primate would ever need,
hanging vulnerably outside the body where cooler
temperatures help preserve stand-by sperm cells for multiple
ejaculations. He also sports the longest, thickest penis found
on any primate on the planet, as well as an embarrassing
tendency to reach orgasm too quickly. Women’s pendulous
breasts (utterly unnecessary for breastfeeding children),
impossible-to-ignore cries of delight (female copulatory
vocalization to the clipboard-carrying crowd), and capacity
for orgasm after orgasm all support this vision of prehistoric
promiscuity. Each of these points is a major snag in the
standard narrative.

Once people were farming the same land season after season,
private property quickly replaced communal ownership as the
modus operandi in most societies. For nomadic foragers,
personal property—anything needing to be carried—is kept to
a minimum, for obvious reasons. There is little thought given
to who owns the land, or the fish in the river, or the clouds in
the sky. Men (and often, women) confront danger together.
An individual male’s parental investment, in other
words—the core element of the standard narrative—tends to
be diffuse in societies like those in which we evolved, not
directed toward one particular woman and her children, as the
conventional model insists.
****************************

The authors of Sex at Dawn argue that it was this transference from public to private property that created the desire for private, monogamous relationships as well.

Edit: I should say it`s encouraging to have this exchange with a thoughtful person who`s had similar experiences to mine. I am also encouraged by the fact that your threads seem to be given fair consideration in both polyamory forums.

Um, I wouldn't say that about this particular polyamory forum, although atleast they didn't delete the thread or worse yet, remove me from the forum (it happened to me in another poly forum); this thread was moved from the general discussion forum because the thread was deemed to not have anything to do with polyamory -.-

That is so much more than can be said for the hypocritical response you get in mainstream circles.

Aye :)

Do you have (a) partner(s)?

Nope. You?
 

NovemberRain

New member
I hadn't intended to participate here, but the ol' 'breasts are for sexual attraction' argument baits me every time.

For a perfectly rational, alternative explanation, check out Elaine Morgan's lovely book, _Descent of Woman_. She explores that theory that during the pleistocene, when the world was burning up, we survived by living in the water. Think on how difficult it would be for a baby to nurse from flat nipples if it were floating, face up, in the water. She explains lots of things that make a hell of a lot more sense from an evolutionary standpoint than the explanation of 'sexual attraction.'
 

Scott

New member
I hadn't intended to participate here, but the ol' 'breasts are for sexual attraction' argument baits me every time.

For a perfectly rational, alternative explanation, check out Elaine Morgan's lovely book, _Descent of Woman_. She explores that theory that during the pleistocene, when the world was burning up, we survived by living in the water. Think on how difficult it would be for a baby to nurse from flat nipples if it were floating, face up, in the water.

I admit that I hadn't heard of her theory (not to mention this theory that we lived in some kind of waterworld in the pleistocene, unless perhaps we're speaking of the legend of Noah's arc and similar legends? I don't discount this legend out of hand, just wondering as to the source of her information), but the fact that there's another theory as to why many women have fairly large breasts doesn't mean that Sex at Dawn's theory is necessarily incorrect. I'm all for hearing more evidence on both of the theories though. It may be that Sex at Dawn includes more evidence for its theory, I've only read the first 50 pages or so at this point.

She explains lots of things that make a hell of a lot more sense from an evolutionary standpoint than the explanation of 'sexual attraction.'

I see. What does she say about the poly sexuality by tribe nature of chimps? Or the length and girth of human male penises in comparison to other primates? And the reason for female copulatory vocalizations and capacity for orgasm after orgasm?
 
Last edited:

feelyunicorn

New member
Very interesting points. An article in the blog of an ex sex worker said something quite similar:
marriage v prostitution..good girl-bad girl!



I've heard something similar from a sex worker; that 80% of clients are cheating on someone. This is a field where anecdotal evidence is king, so few studies have been done on this, but she seemed to be someone who knew more then many on the subject, and even provided me with some good online material to look at.



Very good point.



Aye.



Agreed. That being said, I think I understand why there are many more female sex workers then male sex workers and why women are generally more interested in the marriage game then men (it would seem to me that the fact that she generally walks off with a fair amount of money the man generally had if things don't go well is probably a part of it); Sex at Dawn, a book that many poly people I've met have highly recommended (and that I've now read a part of myself) put it this way:

****
we argue that women’s seemingly
consistent preference for men with access to wealth is not a
result of innate evolutionary programming, as the standard
model asserts, but simply a behavioral adaptation to a world
in which men control a disproportionate share of the world’s
resources. As we’ll explore in detail, before the advent of
agriculture a hundred centuries ago, women typically had as
much access to food, protection, and social support as did
men. We’ll see that upheavals in human societies resulting
from the shift to settled living in agricultural communities
brought radical changes to women’s ability to survive.
Suddenly, women lived in a world where they had to barter
their reproductive capacity for access to the resources and
protection they needed to survive. But these conditions are
very different from those in which our species had been
evolving previously.
****



Again, Sex at Dawn says that it's the reverse. Here's another excerpt that I found to be quite intriguing:

****************************
If you spend time with the primates closest to human beings,
you’ll see female chimps having intercourse dozens of times
per day, with most or all of the willing males, and rampant
bonobo group sex that leaves everyone relaxed and maintains
intricate social networks. Explore contemporary human
beings’ lust for particular kinds of pornography or our
notorious difficulties with long-term sexual monogamy and
you’ll soon stumble over relics of our hypersexual ancestors.

Our bodies echo the same story. The human male has testicles
far larger than any monogamous primate would ever need,
hanging vulnerably outside the body where cooler
temperatures help preserve stand-by sperm cells for multiple
ejaculations. He also sports the longest, thickest penis found
on any primate on the planet, as well as an embarrassing
tendency to reach orgasm too quickly. Women’s pendulous
breasts (utterly unnecessary for breastfeeding children),
impossible-to-ignore cries of delight (female copulatory
vocalization to the clipboard-carrying crowd), and capacity
for orgasm after orgasm all support this vision of prehistoric
promiscuity. Each of these points is a major snag in the
standard narrative.

Once people were farming the same land season after season,
private property quickly replaced communal ownership as the
modus operandi in most societies. For nomadic foragers,
personal property—anything needing to be carried—is kept to
a minimum, for obvious reasons. There is little thought given
to who owns the land, or the fish in the river, or the clouds in
the sky. Men (and often, women) confront danger together.
An individual male’s parental investment, in other
words—the core element of the standard narrative—tends to
be diffuse in societies like those in which we evolved, not
directed toward one particular woman and her children, as the
conventional model insists.
****************************

The authors of Sex at Dawn argue that it was this transference from public to private property that created the desire for private, monogamous relationships as well.



Um, I wouldn't say that about this particular polyamory forum, although atleast they didn't delete the thread or worse yet, remove me from the forum (it happened to me in another poly forum); this thread was moved from the general discussion forum because the thread was deemed to not have anything to do with polyamory -.-



Aye :)



Nope. You?
Yes, I am familiar with the title and the back-to-nature argument, and I can see how it`d be popular with most polyamorists.

If you haven`t seen it already, here`s a different perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzdqyXtPbbE&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ckinOhdtDw&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKJccM_ZUA&feature=relmfu

No, I do not have partners at the moment.

As for prostitution, I would expect some prejudice there from sex-negative polyamorists.

Sorry, for taking so long to respond.
 

Scott

New member
Response to Post#11, Part 1

Yes, I am familiar with the title and the back-to-nature argument, and I can see how it`d be popular with most polyamorists.

If you haven`t seen it already, here`s a different perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzdqyXtPbbE&feature=relmfu

I only saw the first 3 minutes of that (gruesome stuff), I think I get the picture. But Sex at Dawn doesn't argue that we've evolved (or rather devolved) into some rather brutal practices at times; he's saying that in hunter gatherer tribal societies, it didn't work like this.


He brings up Jane Goodall, a subject which Sex at Dawn brings up. From Sex at Dawn's Chapter 13:
*******************************
The Mysterious Disappearance of Margaret Power

Even apart from doubts raised by bonobos [which are just as close to us as chimpanzees and have never been known to be violent, with only one alleged exception I know of that Sex at Dawn gets into later and I quote below], there are serious questions worth asking about the nature of chimp “warfare.” In the 1970s, Richard Wrangham was a graduate student studying the relation between food supply and chimp behavior at Jane Goodall’s research center at Gombe, Tanzania. In 1991, five years before Wrangham and Peterson’s Demonic Males came out, Margaret Power published a carefully researched book, The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee, that asked important questions concerning some of Goodall’s research on chimpanzees (without, it must be said, ever expressing anything but admiration for Goodall’s scientific integrity and intentions). But Power’s name and her doubts are nowhere to be found in Demonic Males.

Power noticed that data Goodall collected in her first years at Gombe (from 1961 to 1965) painted a different picture of chimpanzee social interaction than the accounts of chimpanzee warfare she and her colleagues published to global acclaim a few years later. Observations from those first four years at Gombe had left Goodall with the impression that the chimps were “far more peaceable than humans.” She saw no evidence of “war” between groups and only sporadic outbreaks of violence between individuals.

These initial impressions of overall primate peace mesh with research published four decades later, in 2002, by primatologists Robert Sussman and Paul Garber, who conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature
on social behavior in primates. After reviewing more than eighty studies of how various primates spend their waking hours, they found that “in almost all species across the board, from diurnal lemurs—the most primitive primates—to apes ... usually less than 5 percent of their day is spent in any active social behavior whatsoever.” Sussman and Garber found that “usually less than 1 percent of their day is spent fighting or competing, and it’s unusually much less than 1 percent.” They found cooperative, affiliative behavior like playing and grooming to be ten to twenty times more common than conflict in all primate species.15

But Goodall’s impression of relative harmony was to change—not coincidentally, argues Power—precisely when she and her students began giving the chimps hundreds of bananas every day, to entice them to hang around the camp so they could be observed more easily.

In the wild, chimps spread out to search for food individually or in small groups. Because the food is scattered throughout the jungle, competition is unusual. But, as Frans de Waal explains, “as soon as humans start providing food, even in the jungle, the peace is quickly disturbed.”16

The mounds of deliciously smelly fruit locked in reinforced concrete boxes opened only for timed, regular feedings altered the chimps’ behavior dramatically. Goodall’s assistants had to keep rebuilding the boxes, as the frustrated apes found endless ways of prying or smashing them open. Ripe fruit that could not be eaten immediately was a new experience for them—one that left the chimps confused and enraged. Imagine telling a room of unruly three-year-olds on Christmas morning (each with the strength of four adult men)
that they’ll have to wait an unspecified amount of time to open the piles of presents they can see right there, under the tree.

Recalling this period a few years later, Goodall wrote, “The constant feeding was having a marked effect upon the behaviour of the chimps. They were beginning to move about in large groups more often than they had ever done in the old days. They were sleeping near camp and arriving in noisy hordes early in the morning. Worst of all, the adult males were becoming increasingly aggressive. ... Not only was there a great deal more fighting than ever before, but many of the chimps were hanging around camp for hours and hours every day [emphasis added].”17

Margaret Power’s doubts concerning Goodall’s provisioning of the chimps have been largely left unaddressed by most primatologists, not just Wrangham.18 Michael Ghiglieri, for example, went to study the chimps in Kibale Forest in nearby Uganda specifically in response to the notion that the intergroup conflict Goodall’s team had witnessed might have been due to the distorting effects of those banana boxes. Ghiglieri writes, “My mission ... [was] to find out whether these warlike killings were normal or an artifact of the researchers having provisioned the chimps with food to observe them.”19 But somehow Margaret Power’s name doesn’t even appear in the index of Ghiglieri’s book, published eight years after hers.

We lack the space to adequately explore the questions Power raised, or to address subsequent reports of intergroup conflict among some (but not all) unprovisioned chimps in other study areas.20 While we’ve got our doubts about the motivations of
Pinker and Chagnon (see below), like Margaret Power, we have none about Jane Goodall’s intentions or scientific integrity. Still, with all due respect to Goodall, Power’s questions deserve consideration by anyone seriously interested in the debate over the possible primate origins of warfare.
*******************************

The book also continues by getting into the benefits of war when wealth is concentrated as well as some rather unflattering points regarding Napolean Chagnon's study of the Yanomamö; it provides compelling evidence that he instigated much of the violence that occurred during the time he spent with Yanomamö.

Now, for the one alleged exception to the peaceful Bonobos that I'd mentioned before:
*******************************
The Desperate Search for Hippie Hypocrisy and Bonobo Brutality

For a certain kind of journalist (or evolutionary psychologist), nothing is more satisfying than exposing hippie hypocrisy. A recent headline from Reuters reads, “Hippie Apes Make War as Well as Love, Study Finds.”35 The article states, “Despite their reputation as lovers, not fighters, of the primate world, bonobos actually hunt and kill monkeys....” Another assures us that “Despite ‘Peacenik’ Reputation, Bonobos Hunt and Eat Other Primates Too.” A third, under the headline “Sex Crazed Apes Feast on Killing, Too,” opens with an audible sneer: “As hippies had Altamont [where Hell’s Angels killed a concert-goer], so bonobos have Salonga National Park, where scientists have witnessed the supposedly peace-loving primate hunting and eating monkey children.” “Sex crazed”? “Supposedly peace-loving”? “Eating monkey children”? Do monkeys have “children”?

If both chimps and bonobos make war, maybe we are “dazed survivors”of a “5-million-year habit of lethal aggression” after all. But a closer look reveals that it’s the journalists who are a bit dazed. Researchers witnessed ten attempts to hunt monkeys over five years of observing the bonobos in question. The bonobos were successful three times, sharing the monkey meat among the hunters—mixed groups of males and females.

A brief reality check for science journalists:

• Researchers have long known and reported that bonobos regularly hunt and eat meat, generally small
jungle antelopes known as duikers—as well as squirrels, insects, and grubs.

• The evolutionary line leading to humans, chimps, and bonobos split from that leading to monkeys about thirty million years ago. Chimps and bonobos, in other words, are as closely related to monkeys as we are.

• Young monkeys are not “children.”

• Monkey meat is on the menu at fancy Chinese restaurants and jungle barbecues in many parts of the world.

• Tens of thousands of monkeys, young and old, are sacrificed in research laboratories throughout the world annually.

So, are humans also “at war” with monkeys?

Nothing sells newspapers like headlines of “WAR!,” and no doubt “CANNIBALISTIC HIPPIE ORGY WAR!” sells even more, but one species hunting and eating another species is hardly “war”; it’s lunch. That bonobos and monkeys may look similar to untrained eyes is irrelevant. When a pack of wolves or coyotes attacks a stray dog, is that “war”? We’ve seen hawks pluck pigeons out of the sky. War?

Asking whether our species is naturally peaceful or warlike, generous or possessive, free-loving or jealous, is like asking whether H2O is naturally a solid, liquid, or gas. The only meaningful answer to such a question is: It depends. On a nearly empty planet, with food and shelter distributed widely, avoiding conflict would have been an easy, attractive option. Under the conditions typical of ancestral environments, human beings would have had much more to lose than to gain from warring against one another. The evidence—both physical and circumstantial—points to a human prehistory in which our ancestors made far more love than war.
*******************************
 
Last edited:

Scott

New member
Response to post #11, Part 2 (last part)

No, I do not have partners at the moment.

Ok. I'm curious, why did you ask me if I had a partner?

As for prostitution, I would expect some prejudice there from sex-negative polyamorists.

Mm. Well, I think the best argument against prostitution is the idea that it's not about love, simply about sex. I think, however, that it's a false argument, for reasons outlined in the paper in the OP, as well as a simple question: if the issue is just getting off, why not just masturbate to porn? Why pay the exorbitantly higher cost of hiring a sex worker?

Sorry, for taking so long to respond.

Np :)
 

Scott

New member
I thought I'd mention that I've actually brought this subject up in a forum that caters to sex workers and their clients. I actually made a poll asking whether people thought there was crossover. Here's the results so far:

1- Yes, there is some crossover between all 3 categories: 12 / 40.00%
2- There is only crossover between sex work and swinging 5 / 16.67%
3- Sex work stands alone; there is no crossover. 13 / 43.33%

I decided that I should put a poll in this thread as well and have just done so for anyone interested in seeing the results/voting in it.

There has also been some discussion as well:
http://terb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?370865-The-crossover-between-Polyamory-Swinging-and-Sex-work
 
Last edited:

feelyunicorn

New member
What is the definition of "sex-negative" please? Who is this person in the videos? Thanks. :)
I`m surprised you would ask, since "sex-negative" is in this site`s terms and definitions thread you helped compile.

I would go further than the definition there, however, to say that sex-negativity includes a hierarchy between "love" and sex, which usually extends itself to "mind/spirit" vs. body.

In other words, it is derived from Platonic/Christian tradition in which spirit is superior and separate from the body.

The implication being that casual sex, or sex for sex's sake is inferior (or, downright morally reprehensible) to "love"; or, to put it into other words, that sex is only justifiable when "love" is present.

In which case, most prostitution would be reprehensible by definition. I think it would be wishy-washy to pretend that prostitution is "about love", but I have fallen in love with prostitutes and prostitutes have fallen in love with me. So, it does happen on rare occasions.

It took me a long time, and probably over 80 prostitutes, to realize that almost every (if not all) prostitutes have their "special client(s)", who eventually does not pay. It also took me some painful experiences in the track to realize that my ultimate desire when out looking for prostitutes is to be loved. And, how inadequate a way of going about it it is. I am nowadays much more careful about seeing prostitutes repeated times, precisely to protect my feelings against being unrequited.

Much has been said about the vulnerability of prostitutes and their feelings, but I feel a lot more has to be said about the vulnerability of johns. Yet, I do not wish to make it a pity party. Both prostitutes and johns consent to what they do, so if it hurts them, it`s up to them to stop it. I am definitely in favor of full legalization wherever it occurs. And, it does not always hurt. It can and is fun to both parties most of the time.

I would rather say that prostitution can be a precarious substitute for love in the event that one cannot find it in non-pay situations.
 
Last edited:

feelyunicorn

New member
Response to Post#11, Part 1



I only saw the first 3 minutes of that (gruesome stuff), I think I get the picture. But Sex at Dawn doesn't argue that we've evolved (or rather devolved) into some rather brutal practices at times; he's saying that in hunter gatherer tribal societies, it didn't work like this.
Yes, I would guess that would be the argument in Sex at Dawn.

I just wanted to offer the counter-argument, but you would have to go further than the first 3 minutes to see it explicitly made. I think we`ve reached an impasse here.

To be quite honest, I will probably never read Sex at Dawn because I am, for now at least, satisfied with what I've got in explaining my experience. You seem to be in a similar position. *high five*

I am also more focused on actual personal experience and feelings (in myself and others), than the theoretical stuff behind polyamory.

Hence, the reason why I asked you if you had partners. I would love to discuss your actual experiences and feelings, rather than theory. But, I also understand people process their feelings differently, and some choose to do it through books.
 
Last edited:

Scott

New member
What is the definition of "sex-negative" please? Who is this person in the videos? Thanks. :)

I`m surprised you would ask, since "sex-negative" is in this site`s terms and definitions thread you helped compile.

Could you or someone else link to that thread? Would like to take a look at the definition myself.

I would go further than the definition there, however, to say that sex-negativity includes a hierarchy between "love" and sex, which usually extends itself to "mind/spirit" vs. body.

In other words, it is derived from Platonic/Christian tradition in which spirit is superior and separate from the body.

The implication being that casual sex, or sex for sex's sake is inferior (or, downright morally reprehensible) to "love"; or, to put it into other words, that sex is only justifiable when "love" is present.

In which case, most prostitution would be reprehensible by definition. I think it would be wishy-washy to pretend that prostitution is "about love", but I have fallen in love with prostitutes and prostitutes have fallen in love with me. So, it does happen on rare occasions.

It took me a long time, and probably over 80 prostitutes, to realize that almost every (if not all) prostitutes have their "special client(s)", who eventually does not pay. It also took me some painful experiences in the track to realize that my ultimate desire when out looking for prostitutes is to be loved. And, how inadequate a way of going about it it is. I am nowadays much more careful about seeing prostitutes repeated times, precisely to protect my feelings against being unrequited.

Much has been said about the vulnerability of prostitutes and their feelings, but I feel a lot more has to be said about the vulnerability of johns. Yet, I do not wish to make it a pity party. Both prostitutes and johns consent to what they do, so if it hurts them, it`s up to them to stop it. I am definitely in favor of full legalization wherever it occurs. And, it does not always hurt. It can and is fun to both parties most of the time.

I would rather say that prostitution can be a precarious substitute for love in the event that one cannot find it in non-pay situations.

Interesting points. Since I haven't yet seen the sex negative definition on here, I will for now assume that you are correct in your understanding of its definition here. I recognize that you also added a bit to this site's definition. I think the real question here is, what is love? Put another way, can you love someone at first site? Do you need to know someone's story to love them? Or can simply looking at a picture of someone, or even a touch from said person get you to feel love? In the past, I've talked about one being able to define different levels of love, as well as the fact that just because you love someone doesn't mean you'll be able to maintain a relationship with them; unrequited love happens often. I think that there may be a meta state where if you love something or someone, it loves you back, but this goes beyond anything on the conscious level, so it's not really all that practical.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that I'd much rather pay a woman for sex (which I did do for my first time) then pay for drugs for recreational purposes (something I've never done, unless you count chocolate :p) because a woman is so much more interesting to me then any drug could ever be. That being said, the reason that I've only done it once is because ultimately, for me, if you're going to get to the point of actually being with a woman, I want there to be relationship material. Put another way, I'd rather have a woman friend then a woman I have sex with, and it's hard to have a relationship with someone who you're paying to make you happy. That and the fact that I don't have much money, laugh :p.

There is, however, something that doesn't require much money where woman are still paid to do things; porn. It is, ofcourse, a very indirect type of relationship, especially if you're generally not one for the cam thing (which tends to cost much more then simply clicking on porn links, which is free). Porn, like sex work, is a very controversial subject; I think the last post I wrote in a poly board I was removed from had to do with porn. So I think I'll leave it at that for now.
 
Last edited:

Scott

New member
I only saw the first 3 minutes of that (gruesome stuff), I think I get the picture. But Sex at Dawn doesn't argue that we've evolved (or rather devolved) into some rather brutal practices at times; he's saying that in hunter gatherer tribal societies, it didn't work like this.

Yes, I would guess that would be the argument in Sex at Dawn.

He presents evidence, which I have presented to you as well...

I just wanted to offer the counter-argument, but you would have to go further than the first 3 minutes to see it explicitly made. I think we`ve reached an impasse here.

Could you not summarize this alleged counter-argument?

To be quite honest, I will probably never read Sex at Dawn because I am, for now at least, satisfied with what I've got in explaining my experience. You seem to be in a similar position. *high five*

I just don't want to hear any more of the gruesome acts some cultures now pass off as "normal". To reiterate, Sex at Dawn doesn't argue that these acts are now considered normal in certain cultures, only that it's not what human society considered normal for most of its past.

I am also more focused on actual personal experience and feelings (in myself and others), than the theoretical stuff behind polyamory.

I'm fine with sharing personal experience and feelings. I just think that studies and experiences should both be shared.

Hence, the reason why I asked you if you had partners.

I don't currently, but I have had girlfriends in the past.

I would love to discuss your actual experiences and feelings, rather than theory. But, I also understand people process their feelings differently, and some choose to do it through books.

I read books to learn from the experiences and/or studies of others, but that doesn't mean that I'm not affected by my own personal experiences or that I don't like hearing about the personal experiences of others.
 
Top