Polyamory and you

[frunk]

Drakken, what TMM was getting at is why do Gorillas not act on their "reptilian instincts"?  Are they less "reptilian" than humans or just better at suppressing such instincts?

[Eddie Teach]

Valmy and Frunk- the 50% statistic refers to first marriages. The divorce rate for all marriages is higher.

[The Brain]

I like how BB thinks death of one of the partners the preferred outcome.

[The Brain]

I've fed my primate instinct, reptilian instinct, bovine instinct... it's all good.

[Barrister]

I like how BB thinks death of one of the partners the preferred outcome.

[DisturbedPervert]

Gorillas aren't monogamous anyway.  Males use physical force to gain exclusive breeding rights over a harem of females.  Different than bonobos which fuck everything and rely more on sperm competition.

[Berkut]

We've ahd this discussion before.

It seems pretty clear that humans fall soemwhere in the middle of primate sexual exclusivity. If anything, history has shown us that there is no one certain answer, even if current Western social mores insist that there is one, all the while humans rampantly defy that supposed "norm".

Monogamy can work, and work very well. So can other arrangements. Shrug.

For me, I am a product of my society, I think, and the idea of an "open" marriage is only interesting in the most theoretical of senses.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, it is an argument from nature, because human reproductive behavior is part of nature AND we have instincts as much as other animals, especially hominids (which we are a part of).

An argument from "nature" is highly questionable to begin with because it is impossible to disentangle "nature" from social context, which is one reasons why views as to what is "natural" and one not tend to change over time and place. 

It is also questionable because even if coherent and true, it begs the question of why human beings should simply yield to their primative "natural" instincts.

Thirdly, even assuming the argument was coherent and did not beg the question, it is not particularly persuasive, because as frunk points out, it iis not mmediately obvious as a matter of evolutionary biology that our behavior would be more closely patterned after reptiles than our far closer simian forebears.

At the end of the day, the appeal to nature adds nothing because one can always cull the animal kingdom for whatever precedential behavior one is shilling for at any given time.

If you disagree about the claim, or the way I have presented the claim, your argument would be stronger if you countered it factually and argued where I am wrong

I didn't make an argument, I merely critiqued the manner in which you advanced yours.
If I were to make an argument on this issue, it would involve pointing to the ability of humans to use their wills and imaginative capacities to develop any number of forms of social organization, subject of course to practical concerns of convenience, efficiency, and effectiveness.

[Drakken]

Gorillas aren't monogamous anyway.  Males use physical force to gain exclusive breeding rights over a harem of females.  Different than bonobos which fuck everything and rely more on sperm competition.

From my research, females tend to mate with only one partner if both have left their respective native group because they are heavily dependent on male protection and interaction.

However, if they remain in the groups the silverbacks maintain a strong control over copulation with the females inside the group, as you describe.

[Drakken]

Minsky, nothing in your argument negates that the Homo Sapiens have instincts. We still have the same urges than animals to eat, drink, sleep, protect ourselves, and fuck, and our mating behaviors aren't that different from those in animals, despite our developped socialization and abstract thinking.

To claim that is hardly an "argument from nature" as you define it, it is simply positivism. Objective reality.

And by "reptilian", I refered to the reptilian brain complex, not to reptiles. I know that our current understanding of the brain shows that it is mammalian and not from reptiles, though. So if the idea of the R-complex itself is outdated, though, feel free to mention it.

[Ed Anger]

I'm not going to live on a goddamn commune in the woods.

Now, multiple wives....alright. ONE PENIS PER HOUSEHOLD.

[syk]

Hell no. Especially not when there are children in the family.

[Caliga]

Option #4. 

[Sheilbh]

Our modern experience also show that believing that people can remain love together with a single partner for a life time is a pipedream to sell Twilight books and bad, cheezy Hollywood flicks.

I'm not sure who's making up this 'we'.  I'm more worried about the impact Hollywood flicks have had on attitudes to sex than to love.

However, "our" reptilian male instinct is to have sex with as many women as possible, and even better if we don't have to deal with the child-rearing afterwards.

This isn't true, especially the last bit.  From an evolutionary perspective men and women were in something of an arms race not so that we can sleep with as many people as possible but so that they could, if a better mate appeared, successfully have it off with them.

[The Minsky Moment]

It would be even more accurate to say that evolutionary psych is still a young field in the state of flux, and even the state of play now with respect to analysis to sexual behavior is considerably more complex and layered than can be easily summarized in the format of this board.

In any event, though, I don't really see the relevance.  If the question is a prescriptive one of how as reasoning human beings we ought to behave as individuals  and structure our societies, then pointing to descriptive answers of how evolutionary developments have impacted behavior in the past is kind of besides the point.  We are not mindless prisoners of our own evolutionary biology.  If hypothetically, evolutionary developments in the past gave rise to a tendency towards certain kinds of violent group behavior, that would be something we should not only seek to control, but something we arguably need to control to survive in the context of a social and technical context that is radically changed from that of our evolutionary past.