New Scientist article and podcast on polyamory
See "Love unlimited: The polyamorists" in the 8 July 2006 edition of New Scientist. Billed as the "Top Story" no less, though the online version of the article only has the first few paras if you're a non-subscriber. There is (thanks to Jed for pointing it out) a full podcast, though it's not identical to the printed article.
The article looks at polyamory from a psychological and biological (evolutionary) viewpoint.
The family featured in it is straight (3 women 2 men 1 kid & another on the way), but still... They mention the Ethical Slut as the "bible of poly" and include a brief Q&A with Dossie Easton. There's a new edition of the book coming out by the way, which might explain why people have had trouble buying a copy lately.
The article is mostly positive, reporting studies that poly couples stay together as long as mono ones, and for reasons of love or connection rather than (for mono couples) mainly because of religion or family. It also mentions the realism aspect: "Instead of asking one person to meet all their needs, polyamorists are content with several people who each meet a few." Plus "Infidelity in monogamous relationships is estimated at 60 to 70 per cent, so it seems that attraction to more than one person is normal. The question is how we deal with that..." and "The evidence is overwhelming that monogamy isn't natural," says evolutionary biologist David Barash of the University of Washington, Seattle. "Lots of people believe that once they find 'the one', they'll never want anyone else. Then they're blindsided by their own inclinations to desire other attractive individuals. So it's useful to know that this behaviour is natural."
But it mentions some questionmarks from an evolutionary viewpoint: "...as a mating strategy poly may not be any better than monogamy... A good look at human biology does not support polyamory any more than it supports monogamy..." and even, from Joan Roughgarden of all people, "Polyamory won't last. The likelihood of being able to successfully raise children in that context is very limited. My guess is that it's not an evolutionary advance, but a liability."
Overall though, the article is a positive one, and it's good to know that polyamoury is receiving some attention in the mainstream press. It remains to be seen whether it's being thought of as just the latest fleeting fad.
The article looks at polyamory from a psychological and biological (evolutionary) viewpoint.
The family featured in it is straight (3 women 2 men 1 kid & another on the way), but still... They mention the Ethical Slut as the "bible of poly" and include a brief Q&A with Dossie Easton. There's a new edition of the book coming out by the way, which might explain why people have had trouble buying a copy lately.
The article is mostly positive, reporting studies that poly couples stay together as long as mono ones, and for reasons of love or connection rather than (for mono couples) mainly because of religion or family. It also mentions the realism aspect: "Instead of asking one person to meet all their needs, polyamorists are content with several people who each meet a few." Plus "Infidelity in monogamous relationships is estimated at 60 to 70 per cent, so it seems that attraction to more than one person is normal. The question is how we deal with that..." and "The evidence is overwhelming that monogamy isn't natural," says evolutionary biologist David Barash of the University of Washington, Seattle. "Lots of people believe that once they find 'the one', they'll never want anyone else. Then they're blindsided by their own inclinations to desire other attractive individuals. So it's useful to know that this behaviour is natural."
But it mentions some questionmarks from an evolutionary viewpoint: "...as a mating strategy poly may not be any better than monogamy... A good look at human biology does not support polyamory any more than it supports monogamy..." and even, from Joan Roughgarden of all people, "Polyamory won't last. The likelihood of being able to successfully raise children in that context is very limited. My guess is that it's not an evolutionary advance, but a liability."
Overall though, the article is a positive one, and it's good to know that polyamoury is receiving some attention in the mainstream press. It remains to be seen whether it's being thought of as just the latest fleeting fad.
Tags:
posted by Lucy at 3:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home