Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Also, I didn't really get the 'lifelong monogamy or anything goes' vibe from that review. Exerpt from the last paragraph:
"Lifetime monogamy may not be the evolved human template. But I'm pretty sure that carefree polyamory isn't either. And at some level, who cares?"
This seems like the perfect sentiment to me. My partner and I are polyamorous, but there's nothing 'better' about 'natural'. If it's natural, you can say you're doing what you were meant to be doing; if it's not natural, you can claim you're rising above your baser instincts (which, in my case, means petty jealousy). Natural really just doesn't matter.
Instead of beating up straw men, how about addressing her claim that the book is peddling horseshit science?
It sure as hell FEELS like a poll.
I mean ... in theory.
so polyamory in a human way maybe isn't as "natural" as some might think. my impression of polyamory is that the individuals involved usually know that their partner is hanging with someone else.
but yeah there are some species in which the sneaking around is done in the open. thing is, you can find an example of whatever you want in nature. which is cool.
and a lot of primate examples just don't fly...like when there is one dominant male who gets a ton of females. those systems just aren't relevant.
Also as for jealousy it makes perfect sense. The species wants polyamory because it insures a good spread of genes and it insures that positive genes wont be relegated to a small population. From an individual's perspective their genes are best passed on when their partner(s) stick with them but they engage with other partners.
A prime example of this is how common it is for people to cheat on someone but because enraged when they are cheated on. It makes perfect sense from a competitive semi-cooperative system like evolution.
It is a rational choice, not an inbred instinct.
Sure, many can't hack it.
Just like many choose not to eat healthy or exercise enough or work hard or get an education. All choices that may not be "natural" or "fun" in the short term but that result in a more successful joyful life.
Dan can't hack monogamy.
He is socially immature and selfish.
It's no crime, there are many like him.
Where Dan is particularly annoying is his insistence that his weakness is the "natural" and "inevitable" human behavior mode.
No different than the morbidly obese insisting that eating healthy and exercising are not natural (look at the sloth! the pig! the elephant!...) or the videogame playing slacker living in his mom's basement insisting that getting an education and job are abnormal (the grasshopper plays! puppies don't go to school!)
Bonobo Shenobo.
Grow up already.....
You're an idiot if the reason you object to finding out about ourselves is that we use the scientific method to prove it.
What, consistently shtupping the same single person for several decades brings more joy than expanding one's sexual horizons and engaging in threesomes?
If God wanted us all to be completely monogamous for our entire lives, He wouldn't have made anyone bisexual.
And for the record, I'll take 15 minutes of the Mine Shaft and 23 hours and 45 minutes of monogamy per day, thanks.
Does that qualify as fighting fire with fire, or something?
We rebuke proselytizing when Christians try to tell us about our sexuality.
How, just how, can you tell everyone else about theirs without facing the same criticism?
I'm quoting 20 in full because the comment is bridged as it is anonymous.
Interesting points.
"Here's the thing: humans aren't like bonobos. And do you know how I know that we are not like bonobos? Because we're not like bonobos."
Dude, seriously?
/Bonobo at podium pulls out gun
"Bonobo rage!"
How absolutist and black-and-white of her. *eyeroll*
Seriously, though, Dan, I think your clarity of thought regarding this book is impeded by your massive boner for it. You are smart and perceptive but you're no scientist, and the content of this book is in no way good science. I know you love it and you want to believe it, but it's self-satisfied junk. Sorry.
It's now maggot puree...hand me a spoon.
We evolved as meat-eaters, and perhaps it's a little unnatural for a human to be vegan, but if a person wants to go through the extra effort to live a vegan lifestyle, we don't need to write books telling them their behavior is unnatural and that they should have a steak. If those vegans want to be vegans, they have the right to do that, as unnatural as it might be.
Just because our culture's traditional practice of monogamy is unnatural doesn't mean we should all give up on monogamy altogether. There are a lot of unnatural things in our lives, and many of them are pretty great. The authors are just asking us to consider that we're not all wired for monogamy, and I am grateful that they've published this book.
Actually, if anything is natural to humans, it's the development of culture - myths, religion, rituals, laws, language, etc. Despite our fantasies of the "noble savage", at no point in human history were there bands of pre-linguisitic, pre-cultural people running around acting out their instincts untainted and unfettered by social pressure. Human sexuality has been shaped by culture since the origins of our species.
P.S. You realize that books have been written using the same "scientific" methods and evidence as the authors of Sex At Dawn to "prove" that homosexuality is unnatural, blacks are inferior to whites, and women belong at home in the kitchen, right? So, either you believe in these things as well, Mr. Caveman, or you're just another hypocrite.
Monogamy feels unnatural to me. It feels perfectly natural to others. Awesome.
Though I do have to say that her theory that 'natural' poly and jealousy wouldn't be part of the same system is utter idiocy. Refusing to look at the fact that people are selfish, possessive assholes (and that's definitely natural) isn't the best way to win the argument. Of course, those things may be natural, but we can decide not to be ruled by them - exactly the way we can choose not to be ruled by social and sexual systems, just because they're perceived at this moment as being natural.
So, what I've found is that (and full disclaimer here, I picked up Sex at Dawn feeling it would be bunk and be as full of holes as Malcom Gladwell *ahem*) but what I've found is a scientific theory, based on evidence (not ancient bones, but your body and mine) that pulls together a lot of loose ends in the current theories of human development.
I'm afraid someone not finding the same conclusions is subjectively offended by the main premises of the material mainly that humans are great apes and they are as closely genetically related to bonobos as chimps and that evidence in the human body (as well as those in the bodies of other great apes) exists to show that mulit-male, multi-female parings were more likely than monogamy (or mild polygamy)...
Any way, I'll reserve my other thoughts for once I've completed the book, but I felt I had to say something...
If the reviewer bothers to finish reading the book, she will see that there are many examples of non-monogamous human societies still in existence. These societies are of the hunter/gatherer type.
The authors of "Sex at Dawn" theorize that the possessive sexuality that we have in our culture today has roots in the advent of agriculture - and that many other social ills that we suffer are a result of agriculture.
Our "instinctual" jealousy could very well be the result of social conditioning. Our culture actually encourages this sort of behavior, rather than condemning it as disruptive to the cooperation that is required of humans to be successful as a species.
This bullshit even goes against 50's educational films that warn young people against becoming too attached to one partner.
I enjoyed reading Sex at Dawn, but the theories did have a lot of holes in them. How much you believe them depends on your own disposition. I've discussed it with a lot of my monogamous friends who had never even considered an open relationship, and their reactions have not been promising. I invited them to read the book as well, but I have a feeling that their reactions will be contingent on what they seek for themselves and how stringent they will kowtow to society's standards.
Things which are present and therefore "natural" in populations of the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans:
Killing and eating your offspring.
Rolling around in the dung of your prey.
Throwing your own feces at neighbors.
Rape.
Necrophilia.
Bestiality.
Hunting animals closely related to you.
Picking bugs out of the hair of your loved ones and eating them.
Having sexual relations with your own offspring, parents or siblings.
Murdering the offspring of a female to induce her to copulate with you.
Same sex activities.
And, oh yeah, polyamory.
When your opponents tell you what you're doing in the bedroom is unnatural, they're probably wrong. Animals do all sorts of stuff. Dredging up evidence from animal behavior (or applying evolutionary psychology) does not strengthen your position, because you're arguing against something stupid to begin with.
People are people. We don't have to justify our choices by comparing ourselves to creatures that fling poop and try to get blowjobs from frogs.
he didn't.....
Ergo, God made bisexual people. How does it feel to be anencephalic, Alleged?
Are you insane? Ender's Game puts forth interesting and thought-provoking ideas. The Bible and the Bhagavad Gita put forth interesting and thought-provoking ideas. But if you want credibility, the scientific method is more persuasive than fictional storytelling.
[Please note - I am not making any claims about the scientific value of Dan's favorite book. I have not read it and have no opinion. I just claim that "What a neat idea! I wish it were true!" is not a valid argument.]
perhaps your scripture is really old and out of date and poorly translated.....
The problem with this woman is that she makes a very common mistake regarding evolution: you must have one system, or the other, and any sign of two different systems clearly means that neither one really exists. Evolution is sloppy with all kinds selfishness being the rule.
From a 'get as many offspring out there as you can' angle, it makes sense that humans will choose to fuck around when they can, but PREVENT their mates from doing so if they can. Of course, it's achieved by being a sneaky asshole who fucks around but doesn't want his (or her) mate doing the same, but since when has nature cared about whose feelings get hurt? Think: "I get to fuck these hot teen chimps on the side and get 'em pregnant, AND get my own chimp wife pregnant unless that slut hooks up with one of those adolescent chimp boys. Fuck that. Better keep an eye on her when I'm not sneaking out myself."
Actually, we don't see a lot of polyamory in social mammals in the natural world (that is, animals that form mutual, equally strong pair bonds with several different mates). What we see in nature tends to be one male with a harem of females, or males and females that tend to form one primary pair bond but fuck around on the side from time to time.
Sound familiar?
I'm sorry, you Christians are the ones who thought Moses had horns on his head. (Look up Exodus 34:29-35 again really quickly.)
And if you think that God, theologically speaking, did not create every being, then who did?
hence, the jealousy. males want their partner to have only his offspring, so they don't want her to fool around. females want their partner to be a good father, so they doesn't want him fooling around bc fooling distracts him from parenting.
so those that want polyamory to be more accepted bc it is "natural" may also have to accept jealousy bc it is "natural." the sexes are in conflict. period. it goes way back. waaaay back. or do you want jealous types to somehow transcend that natural desire?
oh wait. the sexes are often in conflict EXCEPT where biparental care is extremely important. then their interests are more aligned. hmm. remind you of any species you can think of?
what is so different in humans is that we have sex for sex. way more than even good ol bonobos. it just screws with evolution. i'm ready to throw in the whole towel on using evolution to guide us through our relationships. makes no freakin sense.
humans need their own human model for evolution with this one. don't use animals. they are way to conservative.
And the no.1 reason everybody's panties are in a twist over Sex at Dawn? The premise that controlling women's sexuality (virginity, one husband, religious dogma) is not only totally ineffective it's bad socially.
The no.2 reason? Sex at Dawn backs up their claim that monogamy doesn't work because there's a mountain of data taller than the Washington Monument that agrees. Any divorcees in here, hmmm???
I think that's because the word monogamy sounds depressingly close to the word monotony.
That said, the problem with evolutionary psychology is there is absolutely no way to prove it right or wrong. There is no data. We do not know what human societies were like 300,000 years ago, let alone three million years ago. They were clearly not bonobos. It's like explaining Viking social orders by studying Minnesota.