Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-18-2009, 12:49 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default Biology

I think there is no question of "biological predisposition". However I think it's even more important to question the concept of "biological predetermination" !
Big difference there.
The poly vs mono debate is really no different than debates about a number of medical nature/nurture debates. Cancer might make one good example.
But recent research is starting to confirm what seemed to be known by the ancients. That we have much more control over the whole DNA/RNA process than the original "predeterminists" may have wanted to acknowledge.
Having been something I've been forced to study and follow for a number of years I'm maybe much more open to this concept.
I wish I had specific links close at hand that I could post that might be helpful to those curious enough to follow up on, but the only one that springs to mind right off might be research and a recent book called "The Biology of Belief" - Bruce Lipton PHd. I think this was a decent attempt at explaining complex science in layman's terms and I'd recommend it for anyone just getting their feet wet in the nature/nurture debate.
The whole debate about DNA sequencing etc has profound implications for classic western medicine, especially in the realm of brain function & chemistry. I'm sure most are aware of all the horror stories surfacing every day about the ineffectiveness and danger of trying to manipulate brain chemistry via drugs as a long term or permanent strategy. It simply doesn't work (long term).
Sorry for rambling............
My point being that "bilogical predestination" is very much in question. How that would apply to a mono/poly debate is up to the individuals. It would SEEM that we have the capabilities to shift ourselves in any direction that we truly believe would be a beneficial shift. If we see no benefit, no shift will occur.

GS
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-22-2011, 06:11 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

Beodude123
One thing I see here a lot, is how people talk about the cultural view of sex. I keep hearing very negative things about how mainstream culture etc are stifling us, due to our sexual nature. Seems like a lot of people on here are kind of closed minded, saying that due to our biology, it's pretty much a closed case. If you aren't poly, you are wrong. This might be a bit extreme a view on my part, but the feeling is kind of here in some posts I see.


So I pose a question, what do you think of nature vs nurture? I know as far as traits and behaviors, that scientists have a hard time figuring out which is more dominant... I'd say it's pretty relevant here, in the poly / mono discussion. Discuss!

Redpepper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beodude123 View Post
One thing I see here a lot, is how people talk about the cultural view of sex. I keep hearing very negative things about how mainstream culture etc are stifling us, due to our sexual nature. Seems like a lot of people on here are kind of closed minded, saying that due to our biology, it's pretty much a closed case.
There are many arguments for nature vs. nurture... would you be more specific about what you mean in regards to sex? Do you mean sex negative as opposed to sex positive? What do you mean by biology? and what do you mean by our sexual nature?

thanks.

Raven
Since I've had a few classes that deal with this issue, I'm going to throw out an analogy that's really helped me make sense of the whole nature / nurture deal.

Imagine that you are baking a cake. To make this cake, you need a lot of ingredients: flour, sugar, vanilla, eggs, milk, baking powder, etc. Then you cook the cake: it is mixed at a certain intensity for a certain amount of time, put in a certain kind of pan (glass or metal, round or square, deep or shallow), and cooked in an oven at a certain heat for a certain amount of time. When the cake is done, you notice that it has X trait. Because both ingredients and cooking are required to get a cake, it is very difficult to know if X trait was caused by the ingredients (i.e. genetics, or nature) or the way it was cooked (i.e. environment, or nurture). Nearly always, it's some combination of the two. Hopefully this helps a bit.

I'm certainly interested in what other people have to say - I'm not sure how much poly / mono is cultural and how much is inherent. I think there's probably a large influence of culture (cultures can vary a lot in what sorts of relationship arrangements are accepted and commonplace), but I also think that there's a lot of inherent influence, and I think the inherent influence varies more by person. IMHO, while cultural influence can be difficult to disrupt, it's easier to throw off a cultural influence than an inherent influence.

Redpepper
great analogy Raven. A combination by that analogy seems to make sense.

I really feel indoctrinated by culture when I go to the movies... I've seen two movies in two weeks that fed me the message that I should not dare venture away from monogamy and faithfulness to one partner or I will end up alone and unsuitable to be with anyone. If I do venture out of monogamy I better scurry back fast before losing the "one" person I love and committed to!

I just sigh and remember that I am smarter than they are.... still it makes me angry that they feed us that shit. No alternative, no discussion or willingness to see things any differently and offer a different ending...

I think I will post the names of the movies on the "Movies: That would have been better with a poly ending." thread http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showt...=movies+ending
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-27-2011, 04:43 AM
Beodude123 Beodude123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 69
Default

Oh geez. It came back! I have to admit I was slightly inebriated when I created the thread, and I'm not quite sure where I was even going with it....
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-27-2011, 06:25 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

Maybe with River's stuff added there will be some nugget of greatness?
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-27-2011, 07:23 PM
Carma's Avatar
Carma Carma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 478
Default

I just read Chapman's "The Five Love Languages," which gave me some food for thought. The theory is that there are 5 languages of love, and each language can have many different "dialects."

I am wondering if mixed messages we get in our upbringing (nurture) isn't part of the reason why we are drawn to speaking different love languages with different people.

If you speak one love language with your mom and another love language with your dad, doesn't it make sense that you'd be "bilingual," and that you'd be comfortable communicating with/loving more than one person?

Maybe it's a case of your parents' languages? If they're the same, mono would feel more comfortable, and if they're different, poly would?

This is off the top of my head, just read the book yesterday
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-27-2011, 09:35 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

Five love languages, awesome book. We've talked about it several times here.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-02-2011, 04:05 AM
koifish koifish is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 71
Default

I don't prairie vole lack of monogamy is similar to polyamory. Polyamory is more than one strong attachment, while non-monogamous prairie voles have no lasting attachments.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-04-2011, 01:22 AM
FlameKat's Avatar
FlameKat FlameKat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: :P Cautiously looking around this new world that seems to fit...
Posts: 311
Default my completely unknowledgable two cents on prairie voles

Quote:
Originally Posted by koifish View Post
I don't prairie vole lack of monogamy is similar to polyamory. Polyamory is more than one strong attachment, while non-monogamous prairie voles have no lasting attachments.
they live in family groupings don't they? they don't wander off by themselves and join new groups - or do they? either they live in 'family' groupings and therefore must have some sort of lasting attachment..
__________________
Smile! It makes people wonder what you've been up to

Engaged to my sweetheart, WaterWolf

my blog (non-poly) Pearls & Pixiedust


Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
biology, predisposition

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:26 AM.