Monogamy is bullshit
- Thread starter LisbethNova
- Start date
Absolutely.
One is a social phenomena studied by historians, sociologists, etc.
The other is a biological phenomena studied by anthropologists, evolutionary biologists etc.
That does not change my comments in any way.
Sex at Dawn – Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha – demonstrates monogamy is contrary to human nature through evidence from anthropology, anatomy and archaeology, etc. Excellent and very wittyI'm following the Catholic Church's marketing strategy -I heard their book is a bestseller now-got a bulk order of Ryan's "Sex at Dawn" and Taormino's "Opening Up" to just give away to anyone curious
EXCELLENT - Read this book 2 years ago, and since had my wife and many others read it. Tremendously enlightening, although not "an easy read".
Good on yah, katcalla !!
Yeah there is some overlap in the disciplines. But evolutionary biologists and most cultural anthropologists restrict their studies to earlier periods of time before marriage as we think of it today existed. Depends on how you like to split the disciplines.
While some lay people like this book it has pretty much been disregarded by people who actually work in the related fields:
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10611616.pdf
Even the authors of Sex at Dawn admit that the well accepted science in the area supports evolutionary pair bonding. I think the above linked review hit the nail right on the head. If you don't like the long read just skip to the last paragraph.
The book was rejected by proper academic publishes and remains kind of a sloppy isolated lay person's fantasy experience.
There is no shortage of Sociological, Psychological Religious and Political naysayers trying to justify conformity to current norms. If we listened to them without challenge, little societal change would ever take place. Women would remain second class citizens, racial inequality would be justified, etc There is no absolute correct answer, however if we observe our primate ancestors it is clear that most are NOT monogamous, and open playful sexuality is the norm. We don't own other humans, and neither should we constrain sexual play as a means to reinforce common bonding within and between the sexes.
Lots of "well accepted" science is debunked daily. Rid's attempt to reinforce his religious / socialized outlook demonstrates a very constrained personality, certainly not shared by many who have joyfully embraced their sexuality as members of this EROTIC REVIEW BOARD !
Lots of "well accepted" science is debunked daily. Rid's attempt to reinforce his religious / socialized outlook demonstrates a very constrained personality, certainly not shared by many who have joyfully embraced their sexuality as members of this EROTIC REVIEW BOARD !
One of the authors of Sex at Dawn is a PhD who's doctoral dissertation analyzed the prehistoric human sexual behavior while the book review you're referencing was written (and not that well in my opinion) by a graduate student. That hardly can be called opinion of people who actually work in the field. I did read a lot of criticism about this book and I agree with some of it but I like the book because it shakes people up and makes them start asking questions, I never said that the book is the ultimate truth.
Monogamous or not, pair bonding is obviously important since it's what creates the kind of conditions for children to be born and families to arise. Priorities are important... Whether you're sleeping with one or a dozen other people, your children should be top priority until they're completely independent.
When a culture does not value such priorities, civilization devolves into third world status.
The west is dying partly due to 1) globalization (economic) which has removed most of the advantageous the west once had over other societies, and 2) a breakdown in the family unit (social). We live in a society that now champions single parent households. No father? No problem! Right...
Sexual freedom is great but not when it means significant numbers in the population become completely irresponsible.
We're slowly returning to the natural state of humanity; a select few wealthy and majority in poverty. The blip in human history of surplus living for the majority of the western population is coming to a close. Most people can't handle freedom. They need to be shackled by legislation or religion to impose boundaries on their behaviour.
When a culture does not value such priorities, civilization devolves into third world status.
The west is dying partly due to 1) globalization (economic) which has removed most of the advantageous the west once had over other societies, and 2) a breakdown in the family unit (social). We live in a society that now champions single parent households. No father? No problem! Right...
Sexual freedom is great but not when it means significant numbers in the population become completely irresponsible.
We're slowly returning to the natural state of humanity; a select few wealthy and majority in poverty. The blip in human history of surplus living for the majority of the western population is coming to a close. Most people can't handle freedom. They need to be shackled by legislation or religion to impose boundaries on their behaviour.
The book is a good read, but even the authors themselves admit that it is an outlier position, and the general belief in the scientific community about the issue is quite different then there own.
The book just gets so much wrong factually it is hard to take seriously. It misunderstands some basic evolutionary stuff and ignores lots of our good primate and primitive society evidence.
This chap's review also covers it well:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/03/book-review-sex-at-dawn/
Their suggestion that paternity is a non-issue runs dead against a mound of evidence for kin selection/preference.
IIRC correctly the book was rejected for publication by Oxford because it was not thought to be sound science.
By the by...it is very hard to write a coherent response while looking at that pic in your signature
Well if it means anything, I'm a single father, separated, trying to start up a new business. I hobby once in a while, but my daughter is my no.1 priority. I do believe this is called responsibility !!
Titalian - Good on yah, mate ! As it should be. Happily, I'm a grandfather 6X over, with one married daughter, and a single younger daughter (the latter decided to have twins on her own in this modern age - to quote " I want to have babies, not marry one" haha !). Whatever, kids always deserve to be sponsored in whatever future they desire for themselves. You're right, that's called taking responsibility !
