3 ms·

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

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
  Religion being a driving force for a lot of these discussions, it does not matter what is natural, because a book is telling you it is wrong. They follow the book, not science, or logic.
  - maltalex 9y ago
    > Religion being a driving force for a lot of these discussions That’s true in the US. Not universally.

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
Religion being a driving force for a lot of these discussions, it does not matter what is natural, because a book is telling you it is wrong. They follow the book, not science, or logic.
- maltalex 9y ago
  > Religion being a driving force for a lot of these discussions That’s true in the US. Not universally.