http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Fri, 25 May 2012 04:28:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11549 Ophelia Benson Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:53:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11549 Well now what the hell do you mean by that?! Sorry, couldn't resist. Well now what the hell do you mean by that?! Sorry, couldn’t resist.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11548 Ayjay Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:48:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11548 Absolutely. Reader response happens. Absolutely. Reader response happens.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11547 Ophelia Benson Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:20:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11547 Yeah, I figured that, ayjay, but I took Kieran's comment a different way. These things happen - reader response, you know. Yeah, I figured that, ayjay, but I took Kieran’s comment a different way. These things happen – reader response, you know.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11546 Ayjay Sat, 20 Dec 2003 13:46:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11546 Ophelia, I took Kieran's comment about social networks to be about community building more than friendship beacuse of his concluding sentence: "So, natural or not, I wouldn’t rely on the idea that sex within marriage 'builds up community, starting with the spousal relationship and adding on from there.'” Ophelia, I took Kieran’s comment about social networks to be about community building more than friendship beacuse of his concluding sentence: “So, natural or not, I wouldn’t rely on the idea that sex within marriage ‘builds up community, starting with the spousal relationship and adding on from there.’”

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11545 raj Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:11:05 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11545 Oh, and, by the way, just because a bloviator like Morse is able to get her bloviations reproduced on a publication like NRO doesn't mean that it has anything to do with reality. It would be nice for you--uh, whatever--to understand that. I might have a slightly--slightly--different opinion if a work were subjected to peer review. But not something from a catholic production like "National Review." Oh, and, by the way, just because a bloviator like Morse is able to get her bloviations reproduced on a publication like NRO doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with reality. It would be nice for you—uh, whatever—to understand that. I might have a slightly—slightly—different opinion if a work were subjected to peer review. But not something from a catholic production like “National Review.”

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11544 raj Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:06:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11544 raj is adverse to stupidity, even when it hides behind--uh--nice language. Raj has noticed such stupidity too many times before. raj is adverse to stupidity, even when it hides behind—uh—nice language. Raj has noticed such stupidity too many times before.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11543 Ophelia Benson Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:21:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11543 No, not a monkey, a great ape. Monkeys are a different genus from apes. Bonobos, like humans, are a species of great ape, not a monkey. Here endeth the lesson. No, not a monkey, a great ape. Monkeys are a different genus from apes. Bonobos, like humans, are a species of great ape, not a monkey. Here endeth the lesson.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11542 nitpick Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:26:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11542 The author quotes an oft-repeated falsehood -- that humans are the only animals which copulate face-to-face. Simple googling reveals that (a) it's oft-repeated, and (b) it's false. <a href="http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/Spring02/bonobo.htm">Bonobos copulate face-to-face</a>, as do <a href="http://study.haifa.ac.il/~aepste01/reproduction.htm">dolphins</a>. Also, there are quotes around "making the two-backed beast", implying that it is a in fact a quote, rather than a paraphrase of "making the beast with two backs," (which doesn't seem to me to specify position anyway). Wait, I've got it! Bonobos, since they use sex (or other genital-genital contact) as a greeting, must be the subject of Morse's essay! That is, all your talk of dyadic withdrawl doesn't apply to bonobos, and they do the face-to-face sex thing. When Morse says "we", she clearly implies that she is in fact a monkey. The author quotes an oft-repeated falsehood—that humans are the only animals which copulate face-to-face. Simple googling reveals that (a) it’s oft-repeated, and (b) it’s false. Bonobos copulate face-to-face, as do dolphins. Also, there are quotes around “making the two-backed beast”, implying that it is a in fact a quote, rather than a paraphrase of “making the beast with two backs,” (which doesn’t seem to me to specify position anyway). Wait, I’ve got it! Bonobos, since they use sex (or other genital-genital contact) as a greeting, must be the subject of Morse’s essay! That is, all your talk of dyadic withdrawl doesn’t apply to bonobos, and they do the face-to-face sex thing. When Morse says “we”, she clearly implies that she is in fact a monkey.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11541 H Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:03:01 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11541 Some years ago, an acquaintance of mine wrote a dissertation on Catholic ideas of marriage, and I am trying to remember when he said that "spousal unity" joined up with procreation as a purpose of marriage. It may be late 19th century, but I don't remember. I also think the Church prohibited infertile people (such as post-menopausal women) from marrying at one time, but again, y'all should poke around and see if I'm right here. Anybody know what Morse's religious schtick is? I found a similar article by her and Chuck Colson (an Evangelical) in Christianity Today (also Evangelical) at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/010/32.156.html Once these folks have "spousal unity" as a reason for marriage, they have a hard time keeping out the same-sex couples. They have to reach into a different bag of proof-texts to hang on to the homophobia. Well, gotta go socialize and prevent that dyadic withdrawal from happening. - H Some years ago, an acquaintance of mine wrote a dissertation on Catholic ideas of marriage, and I am trying to remember when he said that “spousal unity” joined up with procreation as a purpose of marriage. It may be late 19th century, but I don’t remember. I also think the Church prohibited infertile people (such as post-menopausal women) from marrying at one time, but again, y’all should poke around and see if I’m right here. Anybody know what Morse’s religious schtick is? I found a similar article by her and Chuck Colson (an Evangelical) in Christianity Today (also Evangelical) at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/010/32.156.html Once these folks have “spousal unity” as a reason for marriage, they have a hard time keeping out the same-sex couples. They have to reach into a different bag of proof-texts to hang on to the homophobia. Well, gotta go socialize and prevent that dyadic withdrawal from happening. – H

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11540 Ophelia Benson Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:18:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11540 Um - was it? "I confine myself to a sociological observation. Morse claims that a central feature of heterosexual sex within marriage is that it is “an engine of sociability that calls us out of our self-centeredness.” If anything, the opposite seems to be the case. A long-standing idea in sociology is that as you meet someone and later marry and have children, your social network will tend to get smaller. It’s called dyadic withdrawal. The married couple looks within itself for its sociability." Sociability, social network - I take that to be about friendship at least as much as it is about community. That's the part of the post I was addressing, anyway. Um – was it? “I confine myself to a sociological observation. Morse claims that a central feature of heterosexual sex within marriage is that it is “an engine of sociability that calls us out of our self-centeredness.” If anything, the opposite seems to be the case. A long-standing idea in sociology is that as you meet someone and later marry and have children, your social network will tend to get smaller. It’s called dyadic withdrawal. The married couple looks within itself for its sociability.” Sociability, social network – I take that to be about friendship at least as much as it is about community. That’s the part of the post I was addressing, anyway.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11539 ayjay Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:42:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11539 Re Ophelia's comment "Sure, families bond at the PTA and all, but who doesn’t know that single people are more available for friendship?" Right, but the issue wasn't friendship, it was community-building. Related topics, but quite distinct. Re Ophelia’s comment “Sure, families bond at the PTA and all, but who doesn’t know that single people are more available for friendship?” Right, but the issue wasn’t friendship, it was community-building. Related topics, but quite distinct.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11538 Roback Morse Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:02:59 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11538 Dyadic Withdrawal. That's some sort of new-fangled birth control method, isn't it? Dyadic Withdrawal. That’s some sort of new-fangled birth control method, isn’t it?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11537 Ophelia Benson Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:49:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11537 Oh - oops. That's what Bob just said. Er - ditto, then. Oh – oops. That’s what Bob just said. Er – ditto, then.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11536 Ophelia Benson Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:48:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11536 "I leave it to legal scholars to explain what’s wrong with arguments from “what nature intended.”" It's not only legal scholars who are good at that, by the way. There's Janet Radcliffe Richards, for instance - or Richard Dawkins, who is very firm on the distinction between Darwinism as explanatory, and Darwinism as normative. He is, he says, an ardent Darwinian in the first sense and an equally ardent anti-Darwinian in the second sense. As was Darwin, of course. “I leave it to legal scholars to explain what’s wrong with arguments from “what nature intended.”” It’s not only legal scholars who are good at that, by the way. There’s Janet Radcliffe Richards, for instance – or Richard Dawkins, who is very firm on the distinction between Darwinism as explanatory, and Darwinism as normative. He is, he says, an ardent Darwinian in the first sense and an equally ardent anti-Darwinian in the second sense. As was Darwin, of course.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/19/the-beast-with-two-robacks/comment-page-1/#comment-11535 Bob Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:38:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=784#comment-11535 Add to the legal scholars, feminists, political theorists, and sociologists the evolutionary biologists, who might take issue with Morse's conflation of <i>consequence</i> and <i>purpose</i>. That particular conflation is the sort of thing that religious creationists point to in order to paint Darwinism as circular, only it's people like Morse, not people like Darwin, who fall into that circularity. Long-term care by both parents might indeed be a trait that could persist in a population, but to call the increased probability of offspring survival the <i>purpose</i> of parental care (or of long-term bonding between the parents) makes evolution teleological and makes it just seem like another trick in God's creationist toolbox. The thing is, if you grant babymaking as the purpose of coupling, there are plenty of things that lead to even more babymaking that I'm sure Morse wouldn't endorse. Murder of step-offspring, abandonment of offspring during times of short-term stress, sexual bribery, and sexual infidelity are all behaviors which would be justified by Morse's uncareful invoking of evolutionary theory. Add to the legal scholars, feminists, political theorists, and sociologists the evolutionary biologists, who might take issue with Morse’s conflation of consequence and purpose. That particular conflation is the sort of thing that religious creationists point to in order to paint Darwinism as circular, only it’s people like Morse, not people like Darwin, who fall into that circularity. Long-term care by both parents might indeed be a trait that could persist in a population, but to call the increased probability of offspring survival the purpose of parental care (or of long-term bonding between the parents) makes evolution teleological and makes it just seem like another trick in God’s creationist toolbox. The thing is, if you grant babymaking as the purpose of coupling, there are plenty of things that lead to even more babymaking that I’m sure Morse wouldn’t endorse. Murder of step-offspring, abandonment of offspring during times of short-term stress, sexual bribery, and sexual infidelity are all behaviors which would be justified by Morse’s uncareful invoking of evolutionary theory.

]]>