3 ms·

> This is weak theoretical propaganda pushed by biased amateurs. How so? What makes these authors biased. I'm genuinely interested. I haven't read their bio, b

> This is weak theoretical propaganda pushed by biased amateurs. How so? What makes these authors biased. I'm genuinely interested. I haven't read their bio, but what makes these people biased against the current model of sexuality or for the alternative one? > From a purely anecdotal perspective (which is pretty much what that book is) It's hard to avoid anecdotes in this subject matter. Yes, the book gathers bits and pieces from different disciplines to look at how developed societies behave sexually, and contrasts that with prehistoric sexuality (which we know little of) and sexuality in some less developed societies and close primates. They show that an alternative narrative of human sexuality fits many of the known facts (and best guesses) better than the standard one. Is anyone sure that either of these narratives is correct? No. Can anyone point to anything but anecdotes to support either one? I think not. That doesn't mean that the idea should be dismissed. > if you actually take a random sampling of regular humans in pretty much any developed society, they are woefully unequipped to handle non-monogamy, even when they are both in favor of it. We are unequipped at the societal level. The book claims that we are equipped at the biological one. With divorce, infidelity and depression rates being what they are, I'm not sure anyone can claim that we're any better equipped to handle the current model. Also, there's a difference between being socially unequipped and being biologically unequipped. If tomorrow's society decides to turn veterinarian, a few generations from now will be socially unequipped to eating meat. They won't find meat in the stores, and might even consider eating meat a taboo of sorts. That doesn't mean that they'll be unable to eat meat, or that the smell or taste of meat will stop being appealing. > Even if this were the case, though, it may take another 10,000 years to outgrow these emotional bonds, making non-monogamy akin to emotional masochism! That doesn't mean that Sex at Dawn's model is wrong. It just says that you wish it were wrong. That's hardly the same thing. > Regardless of what you think of the book or its theories, none of it will change how humans relate today. Agreed. But we're having a discussion, aren't we? No one is saying anything about changing how humans behave. > It's more important to understand how current societal trends developed in recent history through the use of pressure from social groups (using factors like religion, environment, or government) to suppress alternative lifestyle choices. Why is that more important? Maybe that's what some people would like to discuss, that doesn't make it more important. Perhaps that whole discussion is moot since it start with an incorrect premise.

peterwwillis 9y ago
The Wikipedia page for the book has a good description of the negative criticism of the book, and the authors are non-monogamists who wanted to form an argument in favor of non-monogamy, and they have stated as much. So it's like a researcher publishing a study specifically to confirm a theory they had rather than test for its accuracy. The purpose of the discussion is basically to address whether non-monogamy is something people should consider - the idea being "hey, we were born for non-monogamy, so let people give it a try!". But it's modern social structures that have been limiting the engagement in non-monogamy in recent history, not our lack of a pre-historical understanding. So I think that aspect of the discussion is more important, because you can actually defeat modern social structures. You can't defeat evolution. I would be very happy to find more concrete evidence of the sexual relationships of people 10,000 years ago! But I think it's going to take significant advances in paleoanthropology (if it's even possible) and that is probably a long way off.
- maltalex 9y ago
  > The purpose of the discussion is basically to address whether non-monogamy is something people should consider - the idea being "hey, we were born for non-monogamy, so let people give it a try!". That's not my understanding of the book. Heck, I remember that at some point in the book the authors explicitly say that they themselves don't know what to do with the consequences of their model. I never got an impression that they were trying to convince readers to have give any "alternative' lifestyle a try. EDIT: Here, I found relevant passage from the book: Our model might strike you as absurd, salacious, insulting, scandalous, fascinating, depressing, illuminating, or obvious. But whether or not you are comfortable with what we present here, we hope you’ll keep reading. We are not advocating any particular response to the information we’ve put together. Frankly, we’re not sure what to do with it ourselves. > But it's modern social structures that have been limiting the engagement in non-monogamy in recent history, not our lack of a pre-historical understanding. So I think that aspect of the discussion is more important, because you can actually defeat modern social structures. You can't defeat evolution. You're right. The fact that you can't beat evolution is key here. BUT we can talk about societal institutions all we want, but if the whole time we assume that monogamy is the natural and only way in which society can function, then the whole discussion is moot since we might be asking the wrong questions. For instance, think about what would happen to any discussion about the institution of marriage if we remove the monogamy assumption. What would happen any discussion of the nuclear family?

peterwwillis 9y ago

The Wikipedia page for the book has a good description of the negative criticism of the book, and the authors are non-monogamists who wanted to form an argument in favor of non-monogamy, and they have stated as much. So it's like a researcher publishing a study specifically to confirm a theory they had rather than test for its accuracy. The purpose of the discussion is basically to address whether non-monogamy is something people should consider - the idea being "hey, we were born for non-monogamy, so let people give it a try!". But it's modern social structures that have been limiting the engagement in non-monogamy in recent history, not our lack of a pre-historical understanding. So I think that aspect of the discussion is more important, because you can actually defeat modern social structures. You can't defeat evolution. I would be very happy to find more concrete evidence of the sexual relationships of people 10,000 years ago! But I think it's going to take significant advances in paleoanthropology (if it's even possible) and that is probably a long way off.

maltalex 9y ago
> The purpose of the discussion is basically to address whether non-monogamy is something people should consider - the idea being "hey, we were born for non-monogamy, so let people give it a try!". That's not my understanding of the book. Heck, I remember that at some point in the book the authors explicitly say that they themselves don't know what to do with the consequences of their model. I never got an impression that they were trying to convince readers to have give any "alternative' lifestyle a try. EDIT: Here, I found relevant passage from the book: Our model might strike you as absurd, salacious, insulting, scandalous, fascinating, depressing, illuminating, or obvious. But whether or not you are comfortable with what we present here, we hope you’ll keep reading. We are not advocating any particular response to the information we’ve put together. Frankly, we’re not sure what to do with it ourselves. > But it's modern social structures that have been limiting the engagement in non-monogamy in recent history, not our lack of a pre-historical understanding. So I think that aspect of the discussion is more important, because you can actually defeat modern social structures. You can't defeat evolution. You're right. The fact that you can't beat evolution is key here. BUT we can talk about societal institutions all we want, but if the whole time we assume that monogamy is the natural and only way in which society can function, then the whole discussion is moot since we might be asking the wrong questions. For instance, think about what would happen to any discussion about the institution of marriage if we remove the monogamy assumption. What would happen any discussion of the nuclear family?