Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, August 30, 2010
Sex Lifelong Monogamy or Anything Goes: You Must Pick One
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Those are your choices. There are no others. There is no middle ground, no third (or fourth or fifth or sixth) option, no way to balance your desire for a serious commitment with the your concurrent and conflicting desire for some sexual variety. It's lifelong monogamy or the Mine Shaft circa 1978. Pick one.
3
She makes a point, but you're right. Like sexuality, people usually fall somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, while others can't help that they're sluts or prudes.
4
I don't know anything about McArdle, but I have to say that her pre-review of Sex at Dawn doesn't seem far off, at least from where I am in the book. The authors don't go through the necessary steps of proving their point. Instead, they scoff at evolutionary psychology because the theories displease them, or make humans sound mean, which is just silly for a book proposing a new theory on human sexuality.
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.
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.
5
Dan, she's not saying these are the only choices. She's saying the opposite, in fact.
Instead of beating up straw men, how about addressing her claim that the book is peddling horseshit science?
Instead of beating up straw men, how about addressing her claim that the book is peddling horseshit science?
9
She lost me in the first paragraph, "I'm about halfway through the book". If this so-called professional writer can't bother to read the whole thing before she makes her prognosis, I'm not interested in her half-baked opinion. I have no interest in someone pretending to be professional at the same time as offering a professional opinion. I can read the Slog commenters for that.
10
yeah about the bonobo thing. i'm not convinced that they or chimps are our best models for social behavior. we split from em a loooong time ago, and who knows, maybe we were (and continue to be) so much more successful than them precisely BECAUSE we weren't like them.
11
There's what, three million years of evolution between us and apes? There are bound to be similarities and differences. The point is we have many possible personalities and desires. Raising a family might preclude certain behaviors merely as an expense of energy and effort. But if family weren't a primary focus, than energy be damned. As a society, is the primary focus on raising a family for the sole purpose of having an adequate army of workers and warriors? Is that what's meant by family values? Has it become more and more difficult to generate the energy needed for a family and therefore less attractive an alternative? She seems to think jealousy is proof against polyamory, but jealousy takes many forms, including of possesions and that would not be proof against the nature of wealth.
12
What's wrong with playing the field when you haven't found the right partner?
I mean ... in theory.
I mean ... in theory.
13
Also, you're either against legalizing pot or you're in favor of providing free crack to 1-year-olds.
15
about jealousy, and using nature as a model for our behavior - a lot of the documented polygyny and polyandry in nature that is relevant to our behavior is done in a "sneaking around" fashion. Like, long-term partners don't necessarily know that their partner is copulating with someone else. if they find out, sometimes the animal equivalent of "jealousy" occurs (retaliation, desertion, whatever).
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.
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.
16
Lifelong monogamy has such a depressing ring to it. How about long term unilove? Polyamory makes me think of a south pacific island with warm breezes blowing and gently fondling me whereas monogamy makes me think of working my entire life in a sweat shop for 5 cents a day until my hands literally fall off. Don't ask me why...but I'm just saying...I know polyamory is so 21st century and whatnot but I really think you should think about a new term for monogamy, Dan!! Either that or start calling polyamory ...polywhoremorey. K?! That way they will equally sound bad (keeping in mind that neither is better or worse.)
17
@15 I think that human society does actually show that a single male will mate with tons of females and the average male has very few lifetime partners. Athletes, movie stars, and the ultra-rich have their choice of women and they often choose to have many.
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.
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.
18
I agree with her. She's not saying there are only two ways of being sexual. She's saying that monogamy isn't natural and neither is polyamory. These are socially and linguistically structured categories. Monogomy didn't exist before the term, before we named it and codified it. And polyamory didn't exist either before we named it, defined it, and codified it. The problem with looking to animals in order to tell others what is natural and unnatural is that the way we look at animals isn't natural. It's structured through scientific theory and human language. We place our values (what we see as important) upon them. It's so silly to even think that science (a social, technical, and cultural discourse) can discover what is NATURAL by using SOCIALLY and CULTURALLY constructed discourse.
19
Also, how about this whole "'natural' implies only one simultaneous behavior pattern" assumption--perhaps within one species, if a single male CAN get away with keeping a harem to himself, he will, and if he can't, well, obviously he wont. Right? Tyrants are natural, and tyrannicide is natural.
20
We advocate monogamy not because it is "natural" but because it is a choice that will bring the most joy to it's adherents and the most success to the society they are members of.
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.....
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.....
21
@18 My god, I think you're right! Let's study animals in a completely natural way and talk about it by using body language and screeches to communicate!
You're an idiot if the reason you object to finding out about ourselves is that we use the scientific method to prove it.
You're an idiot if the reason you object to finding out about ourselves is that we use the scientific method to prove it.
25
@21 -- what I object to is the use of the term natural. There is no reason to call me an idiot. Maybe if you paid attention instead of having an emotional reaction, you'd see that.
27
@20: "We advocate monogamy not because it is "natural" but because it is a choice that will bring the most joy to it's adherents and the most success to the society they are members of."
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.
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.
28
Did she liken non-monogamy to rape in the last paragraph? Did she really do that???
And for the record, I'll take 15 minutes of the Mine Shaft and 23 hours and 45 minutes of monogamy per day, thanks.
And for the record, I'll take 15 minutes of the Mine Shaft and 23 hours and 45 minutes of monogamy per day, thanks.
29
I love how her reasoning goes: "This book has poorly-thought-out, unscientific conclusions! Besides, everyone knows we can't be anything like bonobos because... well, come on! There's no way! Right?!"
Does that qualify as fighting fire with fire, or something?
Does that qualify as fighting fire with fire, or something?
30
Dan, seriously, your absolution about this is so glaringly disingenuous. How can be smug?
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.
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.
We advocate monogamy not because it is "natural" but because it is a choice that will bring the most joy to it's adherents and the most success to the society they are members of.
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.....
33
Since people have chosen, over millenium, not the either/or, but a mixed bag of everything -- hmmm, I'm gonna have to say idiot woman who didn't read the book is an idiot.
35
My favorite quote from the article:
"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?
"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?
37
Ah, yes. "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?"
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.
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.
38
Oh good grief! Dan- give that #@&$% book a rest already! The horse was dead over a month ago, and you're bringing it up for more whipping.
It's now maggot puree...hand me a spoon.
It's now maggot puree...hand me a spoon.
39
@10 Just to be pedantic, I'm going to point out that when species split off from a common ancestor, there's a good chance that they BOTH evolved in some way from that point forward. In other words, when "we" split with the bonobos, they might not even have been bonobos yet.
40
I'm with Dan. I am really sick of reading these stories of people writing articles about this book who have clearly not read the entire book. Nowhere do the authors say that we should all give up monogamy for "carefree polyamory" (isn't that an oxymoron? loving without caring?).
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.
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.
41
@40: "Just because our culture's traditional practice of monogamy is unnatural"
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.
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.
42
I'm not sure why this book needs to be proven to be hard science to be credible, why can't people just read it and acknowledge that it puts forth some really interesting and though-provoking ideas? I read a book called "The Pagan Christ," which basically says that Jesus didn't actually exist at all, but was rather "created" from a variety of different mythologies. Anyway, it doesn't set out to prove anything, it's simply a unique perspective that I found fascinating. If Sex at Dawn resonates with people, and suggests a reason why such a large number of people find monogamy to be challenging, why can't it simply be seen as a possible explanation for that behaviour? It's certainly better than the "men cheat because they're pigs" hypothesis...
43
Hey, you know what all these different models of society and behaviour could mean? That there is nothing inherently unnatural about any of these systems. That there is something inherently natural about the existence of diversity all of our systems, and that maybe we should just quit trying to rule out the other guy's theory, just because it doesn't work for us.
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.
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.
45
Wow. I'm a little more than halfway through the book, and reserving my final judgment for once I have finished it BUT... wow... my conclusions about what I've read so far are the exact opposite of Megan McArdle's... I regularly read science/psychology/anthropology material, such as Scientific American, Jared Diamond and Jonah Lehrer (to name a few). I have a degree in science in believe myself to be scientifically minded: always seeking evidence (something that seriously annoys my husband when he tells me something), evaluating information provided from as an objective standpoint as possible (as opposed to subjective), constantly trying to figure out how things work etc.
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...
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...
46
Social sciences are not hard sciences. They can't be. "Sex at Dawn" cites many sources of information from some very high brow places - as far as social sciences go.
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.
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.
47
So I guess that people who divorce are considered in the category of "Anything Goes?"
This bullshit even goes against 50's educational films that warn young people against becoming too attached to one partner.
This bullshit even goes against 50's educational films that warn young people against becoming too attached to one partner.
48
@46 All of the examples of still existing non-monogamous human societies represent marginalized societies that have been displaced by more successful ones. (As distinct from polygamous communities that exist within monogamous socities). They continue to exist only because they are located in places that are of little value to more successful ones. Even the Mormons formally converted from polygamy when it became beneficial for them to, which is also how/why Joseph Smith, that hounddog, introduced polygamy in the first (God told him to). He really was the role model for the use of church members for sex for Jim Jones and David Koresh. Don't believe me, read the non-Mormon biographies. After all, one really should know the good and the bad of one's famous relatives.
49
I'm seeing all points on this. I'm personally not really geared towards full monogamy, but I'm not going out fucking half the female population of DC. My connection with my wife is too awesome for words and we satisfy each other sexually quite well. The times we don't? We get some friends or make some new ones and have a bit of fun.
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.
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.
50
As others have said, calling something natural in no way makes it legitimate. It doesn't matter if something is present in animals or not or if our early hominid ancestors did it or if everybody was doing it right up until 1921. Humans are gloriously capable of overcoming animal behaviors and altering ourselves based on culture.
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.
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.
53
@51: God, by His definition, is the creator of all. Therefore, if something exists, it's one of His creations. I can assure you from personal experience that bisexuals do exist.
Ergo, God made bisexual people. How does it feel to be anencephalic, Alleged?
Ergo, God made bisexual people. How does it feel to be anencephalic, Alleged?
54
@42: "I'm not sure why this book needs to be proven to be hard science to be credible, why can't people just read it and acknowledge that it puts forth some really interesting and though-provoking ideas?"
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.]
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.]
57
"If we're evolved to be polyamorous, why do we also seem to be evolved to be extraordinarily possessive? This seems like an evolutionary maladaptation. "
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?
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?
58
@55: Poorly translated?
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?
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?
59
another evolutionary concept that gets left out in all of this: the idea that the sexes in many cases may not have similar interests (ie paths to increased reproductive success) and that the sexes are at fact IN CONFLICT much of the time.
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?
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?
62
ok people! massive disconnect here! the reason no one can freakin agree on this stuff and the reason this dead horse keeps getting the shit kicked out of it is that we are talking relationships where REPRODUCTION isn't the point of the sex any more. ie sex with partners before kids are wanted, sex with partners long after kids have been had, sex with partners of the same sex, sex with partners who don't want kids. when we talk evolution, we are talking systems in which sex for babies IS STILL THE POINT OF SEX.
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.
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.
64
Her review was lame, lame, LAME.
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???
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???
66
When Dan, or anyone, can articulate the concept implied by his comments, that is, "responsible sexual variety" in a way that makes it apt for an ethic not any less at odds with itself than "monogamy"/"monandry", this "debate" will have moved forward a step, methinks.
67
I'll take anything goes, please. Mine Shafts, his shaft, her strap-on shaft, the whole nine yards. Bring it, and when you do come, please be nude.
68
Dan, I disagree with your reading of the "review", as half-baked as it was. It clearly states that both are extremes and real choices are bound to be in between.
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.
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.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (68) RSS