Rating: 
Summary: Put your thinking cap on!
Review: After reading "Playtime" by Kim Corum, I set out to find other books about this subject -- monogamy and it's myths, taboos and other fallacies. When I came across this book, I was very enthralled, and the authors make the most of their arugement, that monogamy is humanly possible, though not altogether desirable. While I agree, I feel that they left a lot out of the book, such as mutual love, respect and admiration, things that we do feel and which separates us from other animals in the kingdom.
Rating: 
Summary: A winning team!
Review: Anyone who's ever been or plans to be in a relationship should read Myth of Monogamy. Psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton, and Sociobiologist David Barash serve up an insightful and incisive look at infidelity. This fun book, chocked full of great animal stories, will get you to reexamine your notions of "human nature", and launch many wonderful conversations. I highly recommend tbis book!
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: 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: This kind of thing is why Sociobiology gets a bad rap...
Review: It is rather depressing when you can guess the basic fallacies of a book from it's title, and even more depressing when you look deeper into it and see your worst suspicions confirmed. That, alas, is exactly what happened to me here. Whether the authors are erring in good faith or deliberately using smoke and mirrors I cannot say, but the fact remains that they are wrong. Allow me to explain why. (Since the flaws of this book are primarily philosophical, I should point out that my criticism of it must be so as well. Expect this as you read on). The point of "The Monogamy Myth" is this: monogamy is false because many humans and animals are not monogamous. To which the appropriate response should be "SO WHAT"? The book's authors evidently believe that an ideal is rendered invalid if it can be shown that few people live up to it. This, however, is nonsense. Any moral ideal, be it monogamy or otherwise, is supposed to be a statement of how people **ought** to act, not how they **do** act; the one is simply not the same sort of statement as the other. This elementary ethical (and logical) distinction is lost on the authors, who seem to believe that they have invalidated monogamy in the same way that someone who points out triumphantly that there are no perfect circles in nature believes that he has refuted geometry. On top of that, their argument that monogamy is "unnatural" because it is rarely practiced is specious. It presupposes that animal and human behavior is generally in line with animal and human nature, and that you can generalize from the one to the other - a very questionable idea. If "nature" is nothing but whatever happens to be done, then "human nature" is nothing other than whatever human beings happen to do, an absurdity that reduces a moral standard to an abritrary choice. If most humans are not monogamous, then such a standard would declare monogamy unnnatura; but if behavior should change, and monogamy should become more common, then, by this standard, human nature would change to. This should make the problem clear: the authors do not have so much as a clear idea of what it is they are investigating. Human nature is what human beings ARE; it is not necessarily identical with what human beings DO. To assume that it is is to beg a metaphysical question. This is exactly the author's procedure. This book is a deeply flawed piece of work based on several elementary philosophical fallacies, which someone with a broader education might have recognized. Alas, the authors and editors of this book have failed to do so, proving perhaps that scientists too can be uneducated. The fact that monogamy is not a widespread behavior among humans or animals means absolutely nothing in regards to it's value as a moral ideal or it's status as a part of human nature. It just means that humans mostly aren't monogamous. Big deal. We knew that already.
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.
|
