On Friday 13 Mar 2009 2:53:24 am Charles Haynes wrote: > I wonder how bonobos are supposed to fit this male dominant "serial > monogamy" model. Because they certainly don't by any stretch of the > imagination, and if you're going to try to play the "mongamy is > natural law" card, then bonobos, as some of our closest animal > relatives, trump that rather thoroughly.
In fact I don't play cards. My last card game was 25 years ago. All I am saying is that if an animal model seems to fit a particular pattern it does not necessarily mean that it is right for humans. You can get all sorts of animal models and say "Look - humans should do this because it works for horny toads" or whatever. Victorian morality balked at any human connection with primates, but the morality of those who lived through the Age of Aquarius look at bonobos as their model. These are opinions that are based on based on current morality. Victorians saw their relationship with primates through the filter of their morality and people of the age of Aquarius conveniently claim increased kinship with bonobo society through the filter of their morality. But hello? It appears that the bonobo model did not work well for many people who lived through the age of Aquarius and a reversion to Victorian models of fidelity and morality became a better bet for one's personal life. Why the mealy mouthed protestation then? It is a rhetorical fudge to choose to interpret a statement of opinion as an enunciation of "natural law". But that is a fallout of this mode of communication. What is right for humans in terms of survival could possibly be what has evolved over millennia. I would have thought that the reason why humans are not bonobos should have been clear to most humans. Dismissing evolutionary developments and imagining that a "natural law" may be uncovered by looking a any convenient and horny animal at hand is good for a chinwag - but utter tripe in most other respects. shiv
