I wonder if that really happened...if our cavemen ancestors really ''bonked'' women over the head, dragged them back to their caves, and had their way with them. Hmmm.

(July 14, 2017 at 8:00 am)*Deidre* Wrote: I wonder if that really happened...if our cavemen ancestors really ''bonked'' women over the head, dragged them back to their caves, and had their way with them. Hmmm.

It would be interesting to trace that meme back to its origin. I'd be unsurprised if it just started with an early TV cartoon depiction like Fractured Fairy Tales or something. It's lodged in our minds as a canonical depiction of Cave Man life, but of course it has no historical basis given that it's speculation about prehistory.

A more likely scenario can be obtained by looking at how animals mate. In some species the dominant male literally does do something metaphorically equivalent to bonking a female over the head and taking her to his lair, but in others, mating is literally "til death do us part". How do primates obtain and retain mates? That is more likely what happened until more complex societies were formed that made modifications advisable. Gorillas for example are polygamous. More often females approach males, sometimes the inverse. The dominant male has first choice. In other words in the main some form of consent is involved, at least openness to mating. Sometimes a female approaches a group of males and may be obliged to mate with all of them, but usually it's more one on one.

I am of the opinion that we are polygamous by nature to this day, but because of the need to form cohesive stable family units and the incitement to aggression that jealousy provides, we have mostly modified our expectations and sensibilities to be at least serially monogamous. This is better adapted to civil urban societies like ours.

(July 14, 2017 at 9:30 am)mordant Wrote:

(July 14, 2017 at 8:00 am)*Deidre* Wrote: I wonder if that really happened...if our cavemen ancestors really ''bonked'' women over the head, dragged them back to their caves, and had their way with them. Hmmm.

It would be interesting to trace that meme back to its origin. I'd be unsurprised if it just started with an early TV cartoon depiction like Fractured Fairy Tales or something. It's lodged in our minds as a canonical depiction of Cave Man life, but of course it has no historical basis given that it's speculation about prehistory.

A more likely scenario can be obtained by looking at how animals mate. In some species the dominant male literally does do something metaphorically equivalent to bonking a female over the head and taking her to his lair, but in others, mating is literally "til death do us part". How do primates obtain and retain mates? That is more likely what happened until more complex societies were formed that made modifications advisable. Gorillas for example are polygamous. More often females approach males, sometimes the inverse. The dominant male has first choice. In other words in the main some form of consent is involved, at least openness to mating. Sometimes a female approaches a group of males and may be obliged to mate with all of them, but usually it's more one on one.

I am of the opinion that we are polygamous by nature to this day, but because of the need to form cohesive stable family units and the incitement to aggression that jealousy provides, we have mostly modified our expectations and sensibilities to be at least serially monogamous. This is better adapted to civil urban societies like ours.

It is thought that marriage etc came from religion or that might be what religious folk would have us believe, but marriage, or at least the custom of it, started as a pagan ritual, and it was to foster stability for children and property, mainly. The romantic side of marriage came centuries later.

Marriage was an issue of paternity and property inheritance.  The christian apparatus concerned itself only with the marriages of kings..there was no need for serfs to be married - they owned nothing, and their children were simply another form of livestock to be allocated for farm labor..not entirely unlike the oxen that pulled their moldboards. Marriage itself was not officially recognized as a sacrament until @1200AD.

(July 14, 2017 at 8:00 am)*Deidre* Wrote: I wonder if that really happened...if our cavemen ancestors really ''bonked'' women over the head, dragged them back to their caves, and had their way with them. Hmmm.

I'm using hyperbole as a means of mocking caricature because that's the appropriate level of thought the theistic side has about this.

(July 14, 2017 at 10:27 am)Astonished Wrote:

(July 14, 2017 at 8:00 am)*Deidre* Wrote: I wonder if that really happened...if our cavemen ancestors really ''bonked'' women over the head, dragged them back to their caves, and had their way with them. Hmmm.

I'm using hyperbole as a means of mocking caricature because that's the appropriate level of thought the theistic side has about this.

Oh, I know, but I still wonder that. 

---

(July 14, 2017 at 10:18 am)Khemikal Wrote: Marriage was an issue of paternity and property inheritance.  The christian apparatus concerned itself only with the marriages of kings..there was no need for serfs to be married - they owned nothing, and their children were simply another form of livestock to be allocated for farm labor..not entirely unlike the oxen that pulled their moldboards.  Marriage itself was not officially recognized as a sacrament until @1200AD.

Ah yes, that must have been another time when God spoke only to a particular Pope to make yet another rule in the Church. 

(July 14, 2017 at 10:35 am)*Deidre* Wrote:

(July 14, 2017 at 10:27 am)Astonished Wrote: I'm using hyperbole as a means of mocking caricature because that's the appropriate level of thought the theistic side has about this.

Oh, I know, but I still wonder that. 

And who doesn't appreciate a good bonking from time to time?

(July 14, 2017 at 10:35 am)*Deidre* Wrote: Ah yes, that must have been another time when God spoke only to a particular Pope to make yet another rule in the Church. 

Nah, it was a committee of men in dresses, in that instance, doing what the church always does...realizing centuries after the fact what the rest of the world already knew.  It was mostly about other, far more important things - like how kings should stop being whiny little bitches and bow to rome, planning a war for profit in the middle east, and which bunch of upstarts trying to squeeze out a slice of the lucrative god market were heretics and how to best eliminate them.  Marriage was probably handled out of hand, in the back minutes;

"Sure, whatever the rabble want, toss them that and monetize it".

(July 14, 2017 at 10:51 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(July 14, 2017 at 10:35 am)*Deidre* Wrote: Oh, I know, but I still wonder that. 

And who doesn't appreciate a good bonking from time to time?

Different kind of bonking, but yes! 

It takes all kinds.  I enjoy a good right cross to the jaw, personally.  The other half has brutal pivot in her hips too...really delivers the satisfaction. 

For that matter....who here hasn't tried naked judo? Just what sort of uncultured savages have I found myself set in with........?