h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It made me smile, and I liked the sentiment behind it

As a Edited guide entry though, it left me wanting more; it felt like it was an introduction to something, rather than a stand-alone entry. What would make it quite good is have that as an introduction to a longer entry on the history of monogamy - what happened before, under what circumstances the idea was floated into the ether, how it was reinforced, why some cultures promote the idea, and others have a different take on it, and what value it has today as a way of forming relationships.

And dare I throw down the gauntlet for a University project on such marriages?

Well, H, it is yours to do with what you will - these words are mere pixels on a screen, in a sans-serif font suggesting a contemporary style, typed by tired fingers and an addled hand...

Stay ,
WD

Hi again Otto...

"I don't think that we disagree about the message that you're trying to get across"



"but I really don't think that this is suitable for the guide, and I also don't think that this article does quite what you set out to do."



"For instance, we agree that arguments from nature are seriously flawed."



"But the entry doesn't say that, or imply it."

No, it doesn't say it explicitly. It doesn't even imply it. Instead...

"It uses an argument from nature (bullet point two) in a way that I don't think can be interpreted as irony."

Like you say, it uses an argument from nature. It takes the facts that support that argument, and it shows that they lead to a ludicrous conclusion. This is simply another way of demonstrating that such an argument is flawed. And if that final bullet point doesn't tip you off that this is meant ironically, I don't know what would...

"I think that anyone who read this and interpreted it as a serious call for a ban on monogamy would have seriously misunderstood, and possibly deserve all they get."



"However, I think that the entry can easily be interpreted as arguing that non-monogamy (of whatever kind) is superior to monogamy."

YOU may think that. *I* could not possibly comment. If you look at the facts that I provide and come to that conclusion, then that's something for you to consider...

"Your point, I take it, is anti-bigotory and pro-personal freedom in self-regarding actions that don't harm others."



"But the entry can be interpreted as mildly evangelical, arguing that non-monogamy is superior, as you give a lists of arguments for it being superior"

I do no such thing. I make no moral or value judgements. Despite spook's persistent failure to understand, the title is very specifically accurate - this entry is about UNNATURAL sexual practices, and one in particular. I give a list of *facts* (not arguments - there is nothing in that list but indisputable facts) which support the assertion that monogamy UNNATURAL. It makes no assertions whatever about its "superiority", whatever that might mean. What DO you mean by it?

"in a way that isn't obviously ironic - the tone isn't quite right for that to work."

I'm amazed you think that it's not obvious I'm joking. I've never been accused of being too subtle before...

"I like "The Ultimate Martial Art" a lot"



"but the difference is that it is obviously about something - ie how to avoid getting into random fights."

Yeeeeeeees....

"I'm not sure what this entry is "about" in terms of actual content - as distinct from opinion and arguments that you don't really mean."

I think you DO know what it's about. In fact, you pretty much put your finger on it with your first post - "arguments from nature are worthless".

"I think I saw something that was pro-monogamy knocking around somewhere in one of the review fora."



"Why not work with those researchers on a "Monogamy - For and Against" collaborative entry, perhaps as a "Speakers' Corner" project? That would make interesting reading"

Why not? Well, mainly because I want people to come to this entry fresh and unprepared. As I say, some effort has been expended to guide the reader's expectations down a certain path so that the final word has the intended effect. If it was linked inextricably with another entry about monogamy, 99% of the impact would be lost, wouldn't it? It's a bit like saying "hey, if you're going to rent "The Crying Game", why don't you rent "The Rocky Horror Show", because that's got a transvestite in it too." Kicks the punchline in the teeth, doesn't it?

I'm surprised you're asking for changes, actually, since you very clearly did understand perfectly exactly what this entry is about - so like it or not, it worked for you. So thanks again for the comments....



H.

Hi WD!

"What would make it quite good"

You mean it isn't already???

"is have that as an introduction to a longer entry on the history of monogamy - what happened before, under what circumstances the idea was floated into the ether, how it was reinforced, why some cultures promote the idea, and others have a different take on it, and what value it has today as a way of forming relationships.

And dare I throw down the gauntlet for a University project on such marriages?"

First KerrAvon, now you! If there's room for a Uni project on that, wouldn't you like to do it yourself...? (besides which, I've been there, done that, got the badge... and haven't the time.)

I wrote this to make one quite limited point, and the evidence so far from this thread is that it makes that point quite well. If anyone wants to write anything else, feel free!

H.

This is quite funny. But it shouldn't be in the EG as is, in my opinion.

1) It's not about unnatural sexual practices. Aside from the fact that I don't believe that there is such a thing as unnatural, why shouldn't we have an EG article on the history of sexual practices that have been perceived by society as unnatural? You've nicked its name. We've already got testicle cuffs to link to...

2) It's got a clear agenda - it's very clever the way its done but nevertheless it does spend a lot of time saying what a bad thing monogamy is under a range of more or less valid (and some completely invalid) arguments. You really couldn't describe it as balanced and monogamy is a subject that deserves balanced treatment. There are some fairly valid societal reasons for at least serial monogamy - children perhaps being the most obvious example.

3) I think this would work better as a diatribe against the practice of classifying a given sexual practice as unnatural, rather than a demolition job on monogamy. You could do this by broadening out the range of practices treated as in one of KerrAvon's earlier posts. You could cover examples from both sides - chastity before marriage, masturbation, whatever.

I think the fallacies around 'unnatural' is a subject that could be treated in this way, whereas the arguments for or against monogamy deserve a fuller treatment.

Sprout

"This is quite funny."



"But it shouldn't be in the EG as is, in my opinion."



"1) It's not about unnatural sexual practices."

In the words of a bowl of petunias... "Oh no, not again..."

"Aside from the fact that I don't believe that there is such a thing as unnatural"

Nike Air Jordans grow on trees then, eh, sprout? Of course there's such a thing as unnatural.

" why shouldn't we have an EG article on the history of sexual practices that have been perceived by society as unnatural?"

No reason at all. You're welcome to write it if you want to. This isn't it.

"You've nicked its name. We've already got testicle cuffs to link to..."

Off you go then.

"2) It's got a clear agenda"

So have all the other Entries in the guide. There's no point having an entry if the entry doesn't have a... point. Is there?

"it's very clever the way its done"



" but nevertheless it does spend a lot of time saying what a bad thing monogamy is"

NO! NO! NO! It does NOT spend time saying what a bad thing monogamy is. READ IT AGAIN. It says it is UNNATURAL. It DOES NOT say it is bad. If you think that because it is unnatural, it is bad, that is YOUR OPINION, and nothing to do with me.

" under a range of more or less valid (and some completely invalid) arguments."

Please indicate one, just one, invalid argument in that list (apart from the last one which is obviously (I hope...) a joke).

"You really couldn't describe it as balanced"

I could and shall describe it as balanced. I couldn't describe it as about monogamy, though...

"and monogamy is a subject that deserves balanced treatment."

I agree. Why don't YOU write an entry about monogamy, then? I've written an entry about the fallaciousness of arguments from nature. If you've missed the point and think this entry is about monogamy, I'm afraid I can't help you.

"There are some fairly valid societal reasons for at least serial monogamy - children perhaps being the most obvious example."

What about children? Chimps have children. Gorillas have children. Orangutans have children. MORMONS have children. They don't practice monogamy. But like I said, that is not the point of this entry.

"3) I think this would work better as a diatribe against the practice of classifying a given sexual practice as unnatural"

What do you mean "it would work better as" that? That's what it IS!!!

"rather than a demolition job on monogamy."

Like I say, if you think this is a demolition job on monogamy, it's because you think that if something is unnatural it is wrong. Which is my point. Thanks!

"You could do this by broadening out the range of practices treated as in one of KerrAvon's earlier posts. You could cover examples from both sides - chastity before marriage, masturbation, whatever."

None of which would serve my purpose.

"I think the fallacies around 'unnatural' is a subject that could be treated in this way"

Which is an odd coincidence, because I thought that too. Which is why I wrote this entry.

"whereas the arguments for or against monogamy deserve a fuller treatment."

So why don't YOU write the entry on that then?

Can I appeal to any subsequent commenters, please?

Don't, please, have a go at me again for not being "balanced" about monogamy. This entry is NOT seriously advocating that monogamy should be banned. This entry is NOT saying that because something is unnatural that it is bad. If you think it means either of those things, please read it again and again until you don't think it means that any more.

And if you want an entry which is about monogamy, or about what YOU thought I meant by "unnatural sexual practices" - WRITE IT YOURSELF.

Thank you.

H.

*thinks that sprout meant there's no such thing as 'unnatural' where sex is concerned*

*Ducks hastily down again*

hoovooloo - quite a few people have posted to this thread saying more or less the same things. so, let me sum everything up for you:

we all understand the entry (including me), the point of it, why the title is what it is, and why everything is how it is. we all get that. some people like it. but get this - this is not edited guide material. you basically have 2 choices - either submit this article in it's present condition to somewhere like the post, or change it into an edited guide material entry. the edited guide is fr informative entries, not entries that simply give people "something to think about".

those are your options, which you choose is up to you, but if you are unprepared to alter this entry then remove it from peer review as in it's present state it will not be picked.

thank you!

spook

"Spoon feed me, spoon feed me, but please don't make me think".

The entry is about bigotry, pure and simple. Well, purient and complex, in this case.

Most of my entries are designed to make people think. In fact only two of them are fact-pieces, the rest are intended to unsettle or unnerve.

This is not malice on my part, but an adaption of the Oxfam phrase about fishing and famine.

'If you give a man a fact you have given him knowledge. If you teach a man to think you give him wisdom for life.'

Er - think about it, eh?

a subverter of paradigms called Ben

Hello again spook.

Obviously you didn't read or didn't understand post 40.

"hoovooloo - quite a few people have posted to this thread saying more or less the same things."

Sixteen people have posted to this thread, and the things they have said have been quite diverse. They range from Ukkeli, who liked it and said it should go in the Edited Guide, through didi, who just left some feet , Cloviscat, who reserved judgement, Witty Ditty who liked it but was left wanting more (there are two rules to comedy - 1. Always leave the audience wanting more...), right the way down the scale to people whose comprehension was so limited they asked questions like "what is monogamy". So not "more or less the same things" at all, really.

" so, let me sum everything up for you:"

Ooh, this should be good.

"we all understand the entry (including me)"

Just saying "I understand it" doesn't make it true you know. You're not a Creationist, by any chance are you? There's a certain blinkered persistence I seem to find familiar...

" the point of it, why the title is what it is, and why everything is how it is."

I can point to posts within this thread which prove, conclusively, that you do NOT understand it. But I doubt that will penetrate, so let's move on...

" we all get that."

Don't you just love the way spook here lumps himself in with all the more intelligent people who actually DID understand it?

" some people like it."

Frankly, I'm surprised you spotted that.

" but get this - this is not edited guide material."

Get this spook - that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But remind me - who died and made you Editor? I've checked your name carefully on the screen and try as I might the only way I can make it look like it's written in Italics is by tilting my head to one side and squinting. I certainly missed the announcement on the Announcements page where it said "As of today, Mark Moxon is no longer Editor, and from this day forth a researcher called spook who needs help understanding simple English words will be the final arbiter of what makes an Edited Entry." Could you possibly tell me when that announcement was made? Could you? Please?

"you basically have 2 choices - either submit this article in it's present condition to somewhere like the post, or change it into an edited guide material entry. the edited guide is fr informative entries, not entries that simply give people "something to think about"."

Thank you for giving me my two choices. (Doncha just love Christians and their obsession with "only two choices"? Either Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as posited a hundred and fifty years ago is true and complete in every detail, OR the earth is six thousand years old and fossils were put there to test our faith - YOU ONLY HAVE THOSE TWO CHOICES.)

"those are your options, which you choose is up to you,"

Of your brilliantly explained two options, I'm taking option 3 - "ignore the self-important illiterate patronising fool and leave it in Peer Review and hope a Scout who HAS two brain cells to rub together picks it".

"but if you are unprepared to alter this entry then remove it from peer review as in it's present state it will not be picked."

As I said in post 40, which you obviously didn't read or didn't understand (either is equally likely), the situation is *in* *fact* that YOU are not going to pick it. I'm very happy about that, to be honest. On you current performance, if I wrote anything you DID like I'd consider myself to be doing something wrong.

But please don't go exceeding your authority and ordering me to remove it from Peer Review just because *you* happen not to like it or indeed understand it. That is, in my experience (experience which, if you want to get sniffy about things, includes having had entries written, picked and into the Edited Guide before you ever joined the site), not acceptable behaviour for a Scout.

"thank you!"

You're welcome.

H.

I like the entry

I get the humour

It didn't make me laugh (not even a wry smile)

It didn't make me think of anything I haven't thought of before

I wouldn't recommend it for editing.

OK, I didn't read all the backlog too carefully, too much of it and I'm supposed to be working.

Most of the posting seems to be about if it meets the guidelines or not. To my opinion it really doesn't differ too much from some of the edited guide entries I've stumbled across. It is based only on proven and clearly stated facts unlike for example some of the edited entries about earth siences.

Of course most of us here in western hemisphere disagree with the point made, but the point is so well made that I wouldn't mind seeing in the guide as a reminder about how things can look totally different from the other side. (Who's fault is the current crise in Palestina?) The guide of course is supposed to be educational but you'll have to admit that it is never going to replace "official" dictionaries. Therefore it should not be taken too seriously. Most of the even edited entries show only the researchers and editors view of the subject. Like what bar to get in and what is the best beach to spend a day on. Sexuality is of course a subject close to everyone's , but so what? Mormons had legal polygamy until around 1870(or there about) and they are supposed to be Christians like us. And they only gave it up to be accepted as a state into USA.

, living in monogamy and happy about it

An interesting article in that it makes 2 challenges - Firstly to our common understanding of ‘Unnatural Sexual Practices’ which I have no problem with. The article within itself is consistently argued, clear, based on simple premises and uses humour effectively

The second challenge - That all articles that meet a particular interpretation of the writing guidelines should become Edited Guide entries has however not been as clearly argued - and I find disappointing the overly assertive way in which quite eloquent criticism has been handled.

Implying that the only criticism of your article is because people ‘don’t get the joke’ or subscribe to a bigoted viewpoint - comes across as arrogant (regardless of provocation) It is also likely to discourage people from contributing to the peer review forum and thus weaken this essential part of the selection and editing process.

The dictionary definition of a guideline says that it is ‘a principle directing action’. Guidelines are not laws, as is clear from some of the E.G. articles presented in the evidence for and against particular viewpoints. Articles which may not fully comply with the guidelines have been selected, similarly it is quite possible that articles that meet a strict interpretation of the guidelines may not. The purpose of the guidelines is to highlight common flaws that can be easily rectified.

There is however more than one way in which specific guidelines can be interpreted - If I was being pedantic I could interpret the guidelines in my own way and say that since I am unconvinced that the entirety of Hellenic civilisation indulged in practices that turned things away from their proper use and nature - it is not true that ‘we all know what a bunch of perverts they were’ (and also this line fails because It its written in the second person!)

My main point is that there is always a level of judgement involved. If I am expected to appreciate the dramatic and humorous impact of this line, then out of courtesy I would expect the author to accept that people may feel uncomfortable with the article in a wider context that does not tie down to a specific guideline, word or phrase. From the preceding debate it is clear that regardless of whether people liked or disliked the article there was a difference of opinion amongst those contributing about whether it should be included in the Edited Guide.

Just as iI would defend the right of researchers freedom to exercise judgement about what to include or leave out of their articles - and to ignore or respond to suggestions made in Peer Review (unless they are aggressive to others) so, I would also defend the right of Scouts to select the entries that they feel are worthy of selection.

Sorry Hoovooloo

You may think that this article comes across as a subtle condemnation of those who would label this or that sexual practice as unnatural. That may even have been what you intended to write. But that's not what you have in PR at the moment.

By focussing on one practice you change the emphasis of the article totally. You can't then be that surprised that people get the wrong end of the stick and focus on the monogamy aspects.

I'm all for EG articles that make people think. Your other one in PR, on perception of probability, made me think. This one didn't - I would never judge anyones sexual practice, behaviour or whatever on the grounds that it does or does not resemble something that occurs in nature, because I think the whole idea is stupid. Primates do all sorts of unpleasant things to each other that we have (hopefully) evolved beyond. I understand that is the point you are trying to make here and I agree with the sentiment. I just don't think that what you have written in its current form has the desired effect.

Sprout

Hmmmm.....

I like the entry well enough. I think it works. It turns the common idea of labelling certain sexual practices as "unnatural" on its head, by deftly applying that label to the (professed) preferred sexual practice of the very social conservatives who usually do that kind of labelling. Those unnatural b*****s.



What concerns me is that the title isn't very "search-engine-friendly", if you know what I mean. If I type 'Detroit' into the search engine, and it gives me a link to an entry called 'Detroit, Michigan, USA', and if that entry gives me straightforward information about Detroit, then the search engine has worked, in that case. If I'm looking for information about unnatural sexual practices, and the search engine gives me an entry with that title, and it's this one, then I may be disappointed. I may get a chuckle, I may even get a new perspective, but I won't have found the entry I was looking for. I will have been misled by the title.

Yes, I realize that the effect of the entry depends on that very misleading. I might even go so far as to say that anyone searching for that bit of information would do well to read this entry, and be surprised/offended/confused/whatever. I doubt I would ever search for 'unnatural sexual practices' using those keywords. I would search for them on Harry Hines Boulevard, in Dallas. Anyone doing such a search is looking for... what? Confirmation of their prejudices? qID SIQlaHbe'chugh, bongaghjay'!



I think, Hoovooloo, that you've followed the letter but not the spirit of the Writing Guidelines. I (IMHO) would characterize that spirit as something like 'laid-back encyclopedia'. I think of Edited Entries as places people can go to find specific bits of information that they know they're looking for.

You have challenged my notion of what the Edited Guide should include in the past, most memorably with 'The Ultimate Martial Art?', which is great, and I'm glad it's in the Guide for me to link other Edited Entries to. I don't think Peer Reviewers would be doing their job if they didn't resist challenges like this to the conservative notion of what the Guide should be.

To summarize, I'm not voting pro or con just now, but . (I'm not a scout anyway.)

Ok, time to throw my tupenneth in....

firstly - did I find this funny - not particularly, however, if the idea of the entry is to make the reader think... it succeeded.. In my case it made me think that the author was anti-monogamy... If this is not the case, I apologise, however, glancing back through this thread I would suggest that I am not alone in this opinion.

The trouble stems from the fact that whilst you have written an intelligent, thoughtful piece of work trying to get people to think a little about what constitutes and does not constitute an unnatural sexual practice, you have also written it in such a way as that a great many people read other things into the entry... for example...

"this practice is seen as perfectly normal by the minority who engage in it, and they believe that it makes them happy"

Simply by reading this phrase and stressing the word _believe_ it can give the opinion that the author's opinion is that it the practice in question does _not_ actually make these people happy....

I'm sorry, but I personally will not be recommending this entry in its current form, not because of what it says, but due to the manner in which it is said.


whisky

Hi Hoovooloo,

We agree with WD, to me the entry reads as an introduction. We agree with Otto, the entry is prone to being misunderstood. We agree with KerrAvon that the entry could do with a couple more paragraphs to expand upon the subject of Monogamy.

We also think that the title is misleading. If the entry does get picked, the title will change to comply with the guidelines about titles in 'English Usage in the Edited Guide' http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/SubEditors-Style. As Bels has pointed out 'titles should also accurately describe what is in the entry' How about - 'Monogamy - an Unnatural Sexual Practice'?

To me an entry with a misleading title is like looking up a word in a dictionary which gives you a different definition. It lets down the authority of the dictionary.

I understand what you're trying to achieve and the lead up to the punchline is an interesting approach.

However I would like to see you expand upon the subject of monogamy. Citing the research you mention and expanding upon it would go a long way to getting this entry in the Edited Guide.

Anna

The link doesn't work, Anna.

B

"How about 'Monogamy - an Unnatural Sexual Practice'?"

Well, as Hoo has said several times in the thread- something like that really would spoil the point of the entry


I can see where you're going from on being 'spoon fed' Hoo, and Ben, so how about more on the origins of sexual practices *at the end*- so the set up as it is remainds unchanged, without any clues?

Hmmm, maybe I will go away and write something... but it wouldn't be for a few weeks, RL pressures I'm afraid...

Ben- looks like there's a full stop at the end... Hmm, what happened to that idea about not parsing puncuation at the end of links

Sorry Ben. Here you go

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/SubEditors-Style

Anna