1. I wonder if Darwin and others considered the possibility that many species have sex for reasons other than reproduction. 2. I wonder if Eric Michael Johnson, the author, can write an article about sex that carefully defines his value-laden words such as "infidelity" and "cheat." Take this sentence: And here: These were some things that jumped out at me in an otherwise interesting article. Btw, the word "promiscuity" is also loaded with negative connotations. As I've said elsewhere on hubski "Promiscuous is a word often used by people who don't like sex to put down those that do." The penultimate sentence My favourite sentence in the piece is this Final comment: Cadell, I've been meaning to thank you for all your posts, both the ones you write and the ones you link.Previous studies have reported evidence of female infidelity in small-scale societies such as the !Kung of South Africa, the Ekiti of Nigeria, the Vanatinai of New Guinea, the Tiwi of Northern Australia, the Tsimane of Bolivia, and the Yanomami of Brazil.
Do the Tiwi of Northern Australia have the concept of infidelity in the same sense as ostensibly pro-monogamous societies do? Is he assuming they do?As Hrdy revealed to a scandalized scientific community, the genetic benefits that came from seeking extra-pair matings—while maintaining the support of an existing partner—meant that evolution could favor females who choose to cheat.
How can he even use the word "cheat" with all its nonsensical associations when talking about langurs who probably did not have a pre-nup agreement. For all he knew, langurs might have open relationships.far from being passive, females are “flexible and opportunistic individuals who confront recurring reproductive dilemmas and tradeoffs within a world of shifting options.”
would be improved with the addition of the words, "not unlike members of the male species."Our worldviews constrain our imaginations
Yes, absolutely, and I try to keep that in mind. At the same time, our world views prop up our reality and make it possible to seek community and collaboration. It's hard to live completely off the world-view grid.
In evolutionary science (at least the kind I try and focus on) we try to understand the function of a phenomena (e.g., the adaptation or exaptation). Sexual patterns fundamentally exist as they do in different species because of reproduction (that is the point of sex from a biological perspective - that's why it exists in the first place ). Believe it or not there are hardly any species that have sex that is detached from reproduction (not because it is enjoyable - but because it costs a lot of energy). However, for complicated reasons this is not the case of humans and our closest relatives (i.e., bonobos and chimpanzees) and understanding the reasons why this is the case is important and evolutionary scientists like Eric Johnson do care and study them. You can say any word related to sex is "value laden". Evolutionary scientists - and especially anthropologists - do not attempt to inject any value into words like that (even if it can be unavoidable sometimes). And remember he is trying to disprove the hypothesis that women are just coy and monogamous - so he must discuss things like "infidelity". At the same time I don't think Johnson ever insinuates that "infidelity" is in any way wrong. So even if the word is value-laden in our society - he still attempts to remains as objective as is possible. First he is referring to what "Hrdy" reported. My supervisor for my Masters studied sexual selection in primates and she would have just used the term "sneak copulation" for a behaviour where the female has sex with a male that does not invest as much time and energy as another male (who also is unaware of the copulation and would be aggressive and potentially violent if witnessing it). So I think this is a fair use of the word given the context and I believe Hrdy's observations (which were that females do "sneak copulations" in many different species (including humans)). Perhaps we just differ here but I don't think you can fault someone for using words that society has deemed value laden when he tries to use them objectively (i.e., not insinuating promiscuity is a bad thing). Thanks lil! Glad you like them!1. I wonder if Darwin and others considered the possibility that many species have sex for reasons other than reproduction.
2. I wonder if Eric Michael Johnson, the author, can write an article about sex that carefully defines his value-laden words such as "infidelity" and "cheat."
How can he even use the word "cheat" with all its nonsensical associations when talking about langurs who probably did not have a pre-nup agreement.
the word "promiscuity" is also loaded with negative connotations.
Final comment: Cadell, I've been meaning to thank you for all your posts, both the ones you write and the ones you link.
I don't think so. I think it's a word used by men who are jealous by nature to guilt their women into not sleeping around (while of course we all want to sleep around ourselves). We all have egos that are bruised too easily, and none of us wants to see our object of desire desiring someone else. I'm very good at playing it cool, but that doesn't mean that I want to; I just happen to be a reasonable man. Unfortunately, despite how far women have advanced in the last century, men still are the de facto writers of the rules of society. Would I like to see a world where everyone is treated equally? Yes. Would I like to see a world where my wife (I don't have one; just speaking hypothetically) has multiple partners? Frankly, no. I'm just not that enlightened.These were some things that jumped out at me in an otherwise interesting article. Btw, the word "promiscuity" is also loaded with negative connotations. As I've said elsewhere on hubski "Promiscuous is a word often used by people who don't like sex to put down those that do."
Besides, who has time for non-monogamy? (tee hee)Would I like to see a world where my wife (I don't have one; just speaking hypothetically) has multiple partners?
And the two of you would make monogamy an open-hearted, mutually agreed upon deal. "Cheat" would be a word that is mutually understood.
I also agree with lil below, non-monogamy sounds like a whole lot of work. -No thanks. I wish Hubski had better search, I'd love to scan it for all b_b pre-marriage, marriage references. Aunt cunt face is still an all time favorite.Would I like to see a world where my wife (I don't have one; just speaking hypothetically) has multiple partners? Frankly, no. I'm just not that enlightened.
Now that you are married, have you become enlightened? My guess is that you are even less so. That said, I don't think there's a huge disparity here in society as both men and women are pretty adamantly opposed to having their parters go outside the marriage.
I'm pretty sure someone put together a greatest hits list once upon a time (insomniasexx, maybe???) during an IRC chat shortly after I got engaged. Needless to say it didn't reflect kindly on me. I could either do some mental gymnastics to stitch together my former and current views, or I could just throw my hands up and say that I learned some things about myself that I didn't know between then and now.