?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Second paragraph of third chapter:
True, some of us manage to rise above this aspect of our nature (or to sink below it). But these preconscious impulses remain our biological baseline, our reference point, the zero in our own personal number system. Our envolved tendencies are considered "normal" by the body each of us occupies. Willpower fortified with plenty of guilt, fear, shame, and mutilation of body and soul may provide some control over these urges and impulses. Sometimes. Occasionally. Once in a blue moon. But even when controlled, they refuse to be ignored. As German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer pointed out, Mensch kann tun was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will. (One can choose what to do, but not what to want.)
There's probably a serious argument to be had about the extent to which monogamy is or is not a basic part of the way we humans interact with each other. Unfortunately only the barest traces of a serious argument are to be found in this book, which combines polemic, sarcasm and condescension to the point that you are clear that the authors think they are right, but can't really have confidence in what they say about anyone else, particularly anyone who thinks that pair-bonding is in any way important beyond the fantasies of the fiendish conspirators who have foisted it on generations of unwilling mates.

A mild strike in their favour is that they are very dismissive of Steven Pinker, who has certainly failed to convince me at all. I was also interested in the evidence presented that men in industrialised societies are producing fewer sperm, though this came at the end of so much straw-manning that I really wasn't sure I could trust it. But in general, it's a great example of how to take the very interesting discussion that one could have about polyamory, and then weaken it through the choice of rhetorical tools.

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
lydy
Jan. 4th, 2017 04:20 am (UTC)
The thing I found amusing about _Sex at Dawn_ was watching the authors use all the evo-psych babble to argue that women are naturally promiscuous women and men are programmed to be monogamous, and generally thumb their collective noses at years of solemn articles explaining why rape was evolutionarily selected for. I didn't think it managed a cogent argument in favor of polyamory, but it did a lovely number at making fun of some of the worst of the gender essentialist arguments that have cropped up over the years.

It would be nice to have a good discussion of polyamory. One day, perhaps. But making fun of the ego-psych boys was worth the price of entry, for me.
nwhyte
Jan. 4th, 2017 09:46 am (UTC)
Yes, I think if I had been more invested in that argument I would have enjoyed it more, just as I rather enjoyed their mocking of Steven Pinker who I already dislike.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

March 2019
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel