<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Review
Review: Biologists have a penchant for projecting the human trait of purposeful behavior onto nature--evidenced in their use of such terms as "evolutionary payoff," "genetic benefits," etc. The explanations they offer tend to be glib mumbo jumbo: When one is reading a biologist's explanation of something, Moliere's satirical writing on vacuous explanations may come to one's mind. And biologists' use of the term "natural selection" not only indicates their proclivity for glibness; it usually indicates ignorance of the fact that Darwin's theory of natural selection was offered as an alternative to the theory that individuals tend to fit the habitat--and that that theory has virtually no real-world relevance.
Would that biologists would be forced to take a course in theoretical geography / location theory, so that they would learn how properly to theorize. Barash and Lipton may be too old to learn how to theorize properly, but there is hope for younger biologists.
Note that I am not criticizing the empirical findings of biologists, or the procedures they use in empirical research. Rather, I am criticizing the theories they concoct to explain their findings--theories which are an embarrassment to science (Dawkins' awful The Selfish Gene being a good example).
Rating: 
Summary: What it doesn't ask... an Antireview
Review: I couldn't agree more with a previous review underlying the obvious logical fallacies of this book.
However, even more wrong than what it (wrongly) says is what it doesn't dare to tackle.
The thesis of the authors is that monogamy is unnatural because it does not occur spontaneously, "naturally", and culture must always nurture it. They forget that humans are creatures of culture, we don't even learn to walk, much less to speak without culture.
Biological abilities are given as potential, culture is needed to realise them.
The comparison with animals dismisses that human nature is light years from the most evolved animals. The nature of a dog is the nature of a dog, the nature of a human is the full human potential that only a human can develop.
Our biological nature is not just sexual impulses but also higher potentials in our biology. The crown human abilities are transcendence and integration. Transcendence of survivalist aspects of life into a synthetic meaning which subsequently integrates all aspects of life into that meaning, the "sense of life". It creates a pyramidal hierarchy of meanings that only human nature can achieve, Fido is not biologically equipped to do it.
Evolution...? There are in fact people who have transcended their narrow unintegrated life, full of giving, devotion, love, absolute honesty. Some are ready to risk their lives to their loved ones. They created a bond so strong that they couldn't dream to cheat or search other partners. What makes us capable of looking at a human being as a human being not just an object of desire, what gives the ability to give our hearts, our "souls", to devote ourselves to transcendent goals? Are we evolutionary freaks?
Are such people raping their nature, are they repressing their sexual impulses, are they constantly unhappily battling against their nature or are they happy, integrated, their potential realised, complete?
Is the fact of their existence an evolutionary error, are they freaks of nature or are they the ones who have realised their full human evolutionary potential, the true humans?
A happy dog is a dog who has realised his canine potential, so if those people feel happy and complete is it because they work against their biological potential?
Is moral, devoted, integrated life an agression against our nature? Why did then evolution give us that potential of transcendence, why even the perverted long for that "happiness of the heart" that fullness?
Could it be that it is not antievolutionary but actually the evolutionarilly most sound? Is the true human nature what actually holds society together, aren't we biologically indeed creatures of civilisation?
The authors consider sexual "impulses" as autonomous, "natural". And higher functions would not?
This conception is simplistic and narrow, sex happens inside the whole potential of our human nature, it is not autonomous in itself. It is only the failure by culture to realise this integrated hierarchical transcendent potential that leads to a desintegrated life where the individual searches for meaning and integration and failing to do so resorts to hierarchically lower meanings.
The realisation of the full human nature is complex and delicate, remember that you didn't even learn to walk by yourself. Only the realisation of the full potential of integration is fully human and reflects our human, biologicaly given nature.
The full human is what is the most evolutionary sound for our race and our civilisations, the authors are in fact working against evolution and the developpement of our full biological potentials given by it.
As most pseudoscience published in the USA it's goal is not scientific but political, its ideological agenda was even recognised in the apologetic Amazon.com editorial review. It's goal is to convince us that certain tendencies in our societies are just the right thing in evolutionary terms.
While thraditional cultures had many flaws they were still more in touch with our full human biological potential, alas in a idiosyncratic way. The answer for us is not to go against our true human nature but to rediscover it in a fully explicit scientific articulated way, to have true human culture at last that matches our transcendent biological potential. To be fully human at last.
My only regret about this review is that I can't give zero stars to this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Literally, ?The Birds & The Bees !?
Review: I have been hearing about this, since I was a child ! This book should be subtitled "The Birds & The Bees"-well, mostly, it's about the Birds. This book details the Soap Opera lifestyle of Birds, from a Humorous, Scientific point of view, but strives to inform the reader about "The Myth of Monogamy," without inundating us with complicated scientific Jargon.The Myth of human Monogamy is explained, by first back-tracking and giving examples from the animal kingdom, proving that the former scientific beliefs of Monogamous animal behavior was based more upon Human Indoctrinization, than actual fact-unscientific views and Clouded Perception, filtered through the lens of religious / social beliefs. This book sets the record straight and proves, through the tremendous efforts of scientists of the present era, that Monogamy is almost entirely a Myth in the various Animal as well as Human species. Most people of Jealous inclination will probably hate this book, because it explains the common sense Reality of human interaction, and denounces the silly Myths and social lies we have been indoctrinated with since birth, by society and religion. After reading this book, there can really be no doubt that Humans are NOT Monogamous creatures. Your parents always told you about the Birds and the Bees.... Well, according to the Birds (and complicated, Scientific DNA research in that field), they say "it's ok to be non-monogamous (even if you must Pretend to be monogamous)." Open-minded individuals will love this well-written, accessible research and explanation of human and animal sexual patterns. However, if you are looking for the Spiritual or personal aspects of Non-Monogamy and how this lifestyle affects individuals, families and relationships on a more Personal level, please see my Listmania list on the subject of "Polyamory."
Rating: 
Summary: A provocative and -- at times -- humorous look at monomgamy
Review: In this book, authors Lipton and Barash take a look at mating patterns throughout the animal kingdom (though they seem to spend more time on behavior in birds than on other animals). The conclusions they draw can be anticipated from the title -- that monogamy is not natural, at least based on biological, physiological, anthropological, and other evidence, and in fact is not as widely practiced as once thought. However, this is not to say, as some reviewers seem to think, that they believe that monogamy is thereby unnatural. In fact, in one place they say, "...even if human beings were more rigidly controlled by their biology, it would be absurd to claim that monogamy is unnatural or abnormal, especially since it was doubtless the way most people lived..." (p. 153) And later on, they affirm that "human inclinations may be able to fit whatever matrimonial pattern happens to exist in the society they happen to experience." But monogamy does go against the grain of human nature, according to the authors, and so you have to work at it. A delightful aspect of the book is its humor. For example: "Nothing succeeds, we are told, like success. And indeed, social success...succeeds mightily when it comes to securing extra-pair copulations. (Maybe this is what Henry Kissinger meant when he noted that 'power is the best aphrodisiac.')" All in all, this is a very provocative book. Because it draws a conclusion that goes against the grain of our culture's (though not all human cultures') norms, some people may find it offensive (as seen from other reviews). But the authors make their case convincingly (their case being that monogamy doesn't come naturally to human beings, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done) and it would be hard to refute their argument based on the evidence of evolutionary biology, which is the framework in which they are operating. Like any book, you shouldn't take other people's opinions at face value. Read the book and judge for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: "We are biological creatures . . . "
Review: Keep that notion in mind as you follow the authors on their marvelous tour of sexual behaviour in all nature. Most of us were raised with the notion that humans "must" be monogamous. Often, animals such as swans or foxes were held up as examples to emulate. Barash and Lipton expose the hollow basis of these examples. The notion of human monogamy becomes a fragile ideal - nature, and we are part of nature, is anything but monogamous. In a book combining solid science and entertaining prose, this pair have produced an informal, but information-packed review of new finds in the sexual behaviour of a wealth of species. One small flaw must be dealt with first - sexual behaviour studies must retreat from overuse of the poor screw-worm fly. The authors cannot resist numerous word plays on the poor creature's name. As the subject of an early attempt at controlling pest populations, the screw-worm fly initiated the host of studies of sexual behaviour among animals. Barash and Lipton describe sterilization of this insect as largely successful, reducing its population significantly. Screw-
worm flies are monogamous, which reinforced the notion as predominant in nature. However, a 1970s groundbreaking paper indicated monogamy might not be universal in animals. From that start a wealth of new studies demonstrated that it was monogamy that was rare, not the reverse. The screw-worm fly turned out to be a rare exception to the rule, and the basis of comparison for the later research. Bowing to the expected abuse of "anthropomorphising" biology, the authors eschew "adultry" in favour of EPC [Extra Pair Copulation] in describing the common practice in nature. They show the distinction between "social" and "sexual" pairing. Social pairing includes nest building, territorial defence, raising offspring and other "family matters." Copulation itself, they show, has many more factors involved than simply insemination. Mates must be available, attractive or both. Age, health, even "marital status" may be taken into consideration. And these factors are weighed for "adultery" in animals! Males might need a special physiology or the ability to prevent EPC, even while seeking to achieve it on their own. As they must, the authors arrive at last at humans. Noting how difficult research on human sexual behaviour is to document, they cite, albeit with many reservations, several noteworthy studies. If nothing else, the work proclaims that monogamy among humans is not the "norm." In relating the studies, they present anthropological data, surveys of modern societies and clinical studies. The authors grind no axes and are quick to criticise studies they feel are suspect. The dearth of valid data, however, leads them to present any plausible suggestion that seems either supportable or capable of further investigation. Throughout the narrative they insist that no predictable pattern can be applied to humans any more than with the other animals. Even our closest relatives all retain individuality among their members. A running theme in the book is the authors' call for more research. How do female blue tits judge the ability of some males to resist winter cold more than others. "No one knows. [Yet]" and similar statements permeate the book. Anyone fearing there is little in biology left to investigate should read this. The sparseness of their references certainly supports this plea. While much work has been done, particularly in recent years, an immense range of study topics remains to be investigated. Younger readers should seriously consider the number of topics requiring clarification. A valuable book for these and many reasons.
Rating:
Summary: "We are biological creatures . . . "
Review: Keep that notion in mind as you follow the authors on their marvelous tour of sexual behaviour in all nature. Most of us were raised with the notion that humans "must" be monogamous. Often, animals such as swans or foxes were held up as examples to emulate. Barash and Lipton expose the hollow basis of these examples. The notion of human monogamy becomes a fragile ideal - nature, and we are part of nature, is anything but monogamous. In a book combining solid science and entertaining prose, this pair have produced an informal, but information-packed review of new finds in the sexual behaviour of a wealth of species. One small flaw must be dealt with first - sexual behaviour studies must retreat from overuse of the poor screw-worm fly. The authors cannot resist numerous word plays on the poor creature's name. As the subject of an early attempt at controlling pest populations, the screw-worm fly initiated the host of studies of sexual behaviour among animals. Barash and Lipton describe sterilization of this insect as largely successful, reducing its population significantly. Screw-
worm flies are monogamous, which reinforced the notion as predominant in nature. However, a 1970s groundbreaking paper indicated monogamy might not be universal in animals. From that start a wealth of new studies demonstrated that it was monogamy that was rare, not the reverse. The screw-worm fly turned out to be a rare exception to the rule, and the basis of comparison for the later research. Bowing to the expected abuse of "anthropomorphising" biology, the authors eschew "adultry" in favour of EPC [Extra Pair Copulation] in describing the common practice in nature. They show the distinction between "social" and "sexual" pairing. Social pairing includes nest building, territorial defence, raising offspring and other "family matters." Copulation itself, they show, has many more factors involved than simply insemination. Mates must be available, attractive or both. Age, health, even "marital status" may be taken into consideration. And these factors are weighed for "adultery" in animals! Males might need a special physiology or the ability to prevent EPC, even while seeking to achieve it on their own. As they must, the authors arrive at last at humans. Noting how difficult research on human sexual behaviour is to document, they cite, albeit with many reservations, several noteworthy studies. If nothing else, the work proclaims that monogamy among humans is not the "norm." In relating the studies, they present anthropological data, surveys of modern societies and clinical studies. The authors grind no axes and are quick to criticise studies they feel are suspect. The dearth of valid data, however, leads them to present any plausible suggestion that seems either supportable or capable of further investigation. Throughout the narrative they insist that no predictable pattern can be applied to humans any more than with the other animals. Even our closest relatives all retain individuality among their members. A running theme in the book is the authors' call for more research. How do female blue tits judge the ability of some males to resist winter cold more than others. "No one knows. [Yet]" and similar statements permeate the book. Anyone fearing there is little in biology left to investigate should read this. The sparseness of their references certainly supports this plea. While much work has been done, particularly in recent years, an immense range of study topics remains to be investigated. Younger readers should seriously consider the number of topics requiring clarification. A valuable book for these and many reasons.
Rating:
Summary: Thought Provoking..
Review: Monogamy is a sensitive, yet alluring, subject from both a biological and sociological standpoint. Ever since the founding of sociobiology by people like Edward Wilson, scientists (among many others) have been intrigued by the thought of just how dominant our genetic code is with respect to our behavior, as compared to the dominance of society's enforcement of it's contrived morals. Wilson once stated that culture is on a leash held by Genes, and one could claim equally that our genes are on a leash held by society. This book is a delightfully written perspective that deals with the intersection of those two powers in a way that is both enlightened and nonjudgemental. The authors give an excellent review of how genetic fingerprinting has dispelled the here-to-fore assumed monagamy of a host of different animal species, and quote a number of respectable studies in the process. The astounding and outstanding result is the realization of just how rare it is to find any animal species that is totally monogamous in nature, and humans are animals that happen to not be totally monogamous---by their very "nature". This begs the question "is adultery therefore natural, and hence forgivable?" Will Durant once adressed this issue by noting that many of our current vices were once indispensable virtues in the struggle for survival, and in keeping with this observation, it would seem reasonable to posit the idea that humans havent had enough time to evolve biologically or culturally beyond certain genetic features that have outlived their primal usefulness, and yet continue to stubbornly hang on--despite societal taboos. "Myth of Monogamy" is a book that helps to highlight that struggle without presuming to tell the reader what their ultimate conclusions should be. As such it remains to its end a fairly objective look at a very sensitive subject. Finally, and gratefully, this book is well written, with generous amounts of humor thrown in to keep the reader's attention, and perhaps to help him or her to maintain a healthy perspective throughout their reading of it---I actually laughed out loud several times, which I cant say is all that common when reading a scientific text.. This is a thoroughly enjoyable read.
Rating:
Summary: What Myth?
Review: This entire book can be encapsulated in one short sentence: Recent scientific advances in DNA testing reveal that many species of birds once thought to be monogamous are, in fact, prone to have sex with birds who are not their "mates." The authors purport to use this "revelation" about the "extra pair coulings" (their phrase) of birds to debunk some unstated "myth" about monogamy. The "myth" they are attacking is unclear since it was never identified. The alleged significance of these findings in terms of human behavior is nothing more than the notion that married humans, like birds, are sometimes attracted to persons other than their spouses. That conclusion is hardly new news. The authors' explaination for these behavioral tendencies is evolutionary. Sex with more partners results in more pregnancies. Again, this is not exactly an astounding observation. The authors assume that birds are motivated to have sex by the desire to procreate. The authors ignore the obvious fact that birds lack the intellectual ability to understand the relationship beteween sex and pregnancy. The authors' attempt to link bird with human behavior ignores the fact that, while humans are well aware of the relationship between sex and pregnancy, it seems unlikly that the desire to procreate is the motivating force behind most marital infidelity. The book is not even well-written. It rambles and relies heavily on exclaimation points that make the book read like a realtor's description of house for sale. The authors ran out of material by the end of the first chapter, so they simply rehased the same ideas in the ensuing chapters. The only real insight I had from reading this book is that sex can be used to sell anything.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth Is Revealed, But Choice Is Always Ours
Review: What I mean by "Truth is revealed, the choice is ours", is the theme of this review. It is also the message in the book, although many readers have misinterpreted the entire theme, believing the co-authors, David P. Barash and Judith E. Lipton, are simply feeding us hard reality and crushing dreams of blissful and faithful marriage. David and Judith are experienced, older scientists, specializing in the observation of birds and apes, with a profound understanding of logic, human emotions, sociobiology and biology in general. They both hold high degrees- Judith has an M.D. and David holds a Ph.D. It is noteworthy, also, that they are a happily married couple and have been so for many years. Their real message and theme from this outstanding book is that although by nature, humans are generally not faithful to their long-term mate (spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend), we have evolved so much that we can chose to be faithful and monogamous to our partner and truly be satisfied, fulfilled and completely happy. Monogamy is not extinct, it is rare. Half of all marriages end in divorce. When a couple has been together for many years, it's world news. It is the greatest partnership, relationship, union, and the most peaceful, happiest and fullest feeling. But it is always the individual's choice. If a partner cannot remain faithful, we now have a reason and explanation for it. The reason why so many find it difficult to be faithful to their partner for a long time, is biological. Originally, before an evolved society with its ground rules grew from primitive communism, the homo sapien men were polygamous, especially because genetically, nature demanded variety from their offspring. Incest, of course, was formerly practiced to keep a family bloodline, true even to the highest societies, royal dynasties of ancient Egypt, etc. There was a time when free will seemed to bother no one, and men had many wives, shared partners and even shared land. But eventually, power and property was established, much like class systems, and it came to be a violation when someone "outside" the group took one of the wives from another male. Feeling of jealousy and ownership were established and so, when religion began to take over people's consciousness, they labeled this "taking", "adultery". The biological needs of women are important in the scene, as well, in fact, perhaps the most important link. Women's sex cells contain life-giving ovum, enabling them to bear children, and because they are so few and rare in them, they are selective about their sexual/romantic/etc partners. They are far more choosy because it is going to reflect on the ensuing progeny, their children. Men's sperm is abundant and cheap, and they are less selective. It's all down to our biological make-up. This book is very casual about the whole matter and contains not only very scientifically accurate truth, but very genuine humor and witty lines, making reading this book very enjoyable. This book is very insightful, and opened my eyes about sex, relationships and the many unbreakable "differences" between men and women, such as why do women like tall men ? Why are men so attracted to larger breasts, why are men far more visual and enjoy pornography and why do women act demure and modest in order to attract their mate before showcasing their wild sexual abandon ? These all contain biological reasons. But this does not mean that men are women are not equals, nor are we forever ruled by "animal instincts". We are more intelligent than the animals and have evolved so wonderfully, that we can now chose to be married for a long time with a single mate and live happily ever after.
<< 1 >>
|
