I've taken some time to step back from the whole PUA thing for a few months and just been livin life. I've also been reading some more personal interest books and I just had to post about one in particular. Having taken a few steps back to soak in and reflect I now have a greater perspective. The book "Sex At Dawn" was absolutely a fantastic read I recommend to everyone, especially PUA's.

Go pick it up. But for those of you who need reasons to act, let me summarize a few fascinating parts of the book that may revolutionize societies view of dating and monogomy.

The book basically takes a top down historical view on the history of mankinds sexual relationships, asking the question "is monogomy natural?". The overwhelming answer seems to be NO.

Some PUA specific points I feel just need to be shared are:

1. up until the invention of modern agriculture the human race in all its tribes and nomadic facets hardly ever went hungry - much the opposite to popular views.

2. Up until the invention of modern agriculture sex was most likely had and shared by all of groups of around 50-150 in order to cultivate paternal investment and increase the greatest sense of common responsibility among the members of the group - this also provided the greatest percentage of survival of offspring.

3. Sex and controll over it and others was a product of the agricultural revolution. For before there was something that was not FREE "private plots/stores of food" everything WAS free including food and sex. There was no reason to treat it as a comodity.

4. Women and men when socially/culturally consider each other equals have historically tended to have the most and most readily available sex. This begs the concept that when women do not feel threatend they are much more willing to have sex (the subconcious saftey of potential offspring).

5. Humans are actually closest physiologically to Bonobos and not Chimps. Bonobos are just about the horniest and most promiscious species on the planet.

6. True monogomy is incredibly rare in the animal kingdom and in fact has been mis defined by a great number of species that pair bond for mating but then do choose new and different mates once offspring become self sufficient - swans included.

7. Historically marriage and monogomous pair bonding of humans has had a very statistically low rate of success. Cheating is far more common than record books or modern stastics can show.

8. Statistics and science can now prove that the happiest humans are those who are not bound in an agricultural centric system, and not monogomous.

9. Women are in fact "hornier" than men, they are just a lot more reluctant to act and more senesative to threating environments.

10. Jealousy is 100% a product of fear and related 100% in humans to the fear of lossing investments into resources (food/shelter). Remove those fears or provide the sense of abundance of resources and STATISTICALLY jealousy disapears as human inately want to connect and relate to each other more so than controll - which is completely opposite to popular thinking.

I for one find these concepts incredible and definately relavent to PUA. The idea that even the hotest, bitchiest and most picky girls deep down are thriving to make a connection and ultimately have sex certinaly rips down the Burlin wall of the many AFC's that fester AA assuming they will not have a chance.

Yes there are gold diggers and yes there are snob ass bitches, but having scientific proof that deep down under all the layers of media brainwashing is a horny ass girl who just wants to feel appreciated/safe certainly proves that anyone can nail anything in the right circumstances.

For all you guys who struggle with sexual confidence, this book is your magic bullet. It proves you don't have to be able to aim, just have the courage to point and shoot.

_________________
"Would it be wrong to join sexaholics anonymous to pick-up chicks?" "...yes, and stop eating that baby."

-Psych3r-

k, not much of a topic to start a conversation unless someone wants to argue one of your points...

(trying to argue here for the sake of argument)

as for
it was not "Free" nothing was "free", "unrestricted" is a better term, but you still had to do work to obtain it. after all if you only mooch off other people they natural start to get angry unless you give something back.


now this is something i have to bring up. its correct. and i know a lot of people who would be happier if they stopped trying to stay together after there children had left. (my parents included)



i demand to see these science and statistics.

while it is arguable about there happiness being "greater" they do have to do significantly more free time as they do not have to support (in some form or another) large numbers of people, instead they need only work a few hours a day 2-6 (depending on which specific (hunter gatherer/slash and burn ) society in question), but they cant support a very dense population (the !Kung for example can only support 42 individuals per square mile,work for six hours a day, two and a half days a week. they do however have strict control of reproduction rates{please note what that means is left out of the text i am getting this information from so it could be drugs, herbs, pulling out, or abstinence})

Wow, there are so many things wrong with your statements, I don't even have the time to touch upon them as I have a class in an hour but I'll be sure to revisit this post later.

But just a few things:
-statistics actually suggest that those in healthy monogomous relationships are 'happier' than those who are not (e.g. report lower levels of stress, higher levels of interpersonal satisfaction, better overall health, and longevity)
-fear is normal, and in a lot of cases highly adaptive; it's when fear becomes overwhelming and impedes the organisms ability to function properly that it becomes maladaptive


Your last statement about the book PROVING something is utter bullshit. Any study, or book for that matter claiming to prove causality goes against the scientific method; that is of course the authors themselves conducted some sort of before and after experiment where one (or several) variables were manipulated and the same outcome is achieved each and every time (replicability).

FYI Berlin isn't spelled "Burlin" - don't believe everything you read, a lot of the points in the book have definite counterpoints and some of the statements you've made pertaining to the book's claims can easily be refuted by contemporary literature.


I think you should go back to lurking, or abstaining from using this site for another few months.