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

Entry: Unnatural Sexual Practices - A852699
Author: Hoovooloo - U114627

Righty ho, let's see what sort of a response this gets.

I've checked the writing guidelines, and here's how this stacks up...

1. Write About Reality

Yup. Nothing fictional here.

2. Be Original

I haven't seen this argument advanced by anyone else, so...

3. Fill in the Gaps

See 2.

4. Be Instructive, Informative and Factual

Well, I'm instructing people to campaign against something, I'm informing them why they should, and I'm using only facts to do so. Check, cheque, Czech.

5. Don't Try too Hard to be Funny

Oh no, I'm deadly serious.

6. Write in Your Own Style

Well, could you tell it was me?

7. Write About What You Know

"Write about what you know": "Unnatural Sexual Practices".

8. Research Your Entry Thoroughly

Well, as thoroughly as I needed to...

9. Try to be Well-balanced

I've presented a defence for those people who do practice it...

10. Plan Your Entry

Certainly.

11. It Almost Goes Without Saying, But...

Disregarding for the moment that this writing guideline is not a proper English sentence, I have tried to be as correct as possible.

12. Do Not Copy From Other Sources

Rule 2 again. See above, again.

13. Write in the Third Person

Well, I've tried to as far as possible. It can be a bit of a strain...

Whaddya think?

H.

to quote Siegfried...

"Hi Ho!"

i liked this piece, . The big build up somewhat tipped me the wink - or at least...

well, this is the thread, so i'll say nothing.

good luck
spiff

Outstanding

Nice improvement and well worth to get into the edited guide. I don't agree with you but couldn't help laughing while reading. And it really is based only on proven facts. You should be a lawyer or politician. (no offence!)

Thanks!

I think...

H.

Very cute, but it still fails test number 9.

9. Try to be Well-balanced

It has a clear editorial message. I would take it to the post.

"message"? What "message"? Unless you mean the message "get your facts straight".

I'm hoping nobody thinks the course of action described in the last paragraph is being suggested with any seriousness.

This entry presents facts, not opinions. The exception is the final paragraph, which is (I hope) obviously not meant seriously. There is no "message" beyond "here are some facts", which is surely the message of any guide entry?

I would also draw comparison to other (Edited) entries which present facts in a similarly oblique fashion:

A650675
A649749
A827381

I'm sure there are many others which use a similar format, these are just ones I've had input on.

H.

You are a very naughty man

I always knew I was a pervert - But thanks for proving it

I shall reserve judgement on the guidability of this, but sot back and enjoy the show

Mmm. The inference is ... what? That we should feel free to mate with who and when we want ... and the result for children will be ... what? How would society look, if this were the norm? (Or is it nearing that already - and is that the cause of today's problems ...?)

The entry begs a lot of questions.

A good try, Hoovooloo. Let's get on with the show.

If you're checking the guidelines, there's one guideline that doesn't check out: "The title should also accurately describe what is in the entry."

Two points:

1. Monogamy is not a sexual practice at all. It is simply a particular kind of relationship, which may or may not include sexual practices (it doesn't always). In many societies it has all sorts of other functions, to do with legal matters, ownership of land and property, inheritance, financial support particularly of women and children, religious observances, etc etc.

2. You can't really call something 'unnatural' if it has been practised by millions of people in civilisations all over the globe for many thousands of years, and sanctioned by whole tribes, communities, governments, and religions of all kinds, as part and parcel of a certain way of life. Not to mention all the various kinds of animals that practise it entirely naturally. If it is not universal, not the only possible kind of relationship, that does not make it unnatural. The fact is that it suits some species very well.

So I think you need to change the title, and some of the wording of the entry.

You claim that the entry presents facts, not opinions. That still doesn't make it balanced, if you select only the facts that suit you and ignore all the other facts!

But let's look at some of these so-called "facts":

"those who have interests in controlling the sex lives of others"
-- What about those who enter into monogamy voluntarily?

"it is rare in nature. Some birds do it, only a very few mammals, and among man's closest relatives, the great apes, only gibbons do it."
-- As you admit, it does occur in nature. But being rare doesn't make it unnatural, only rare. You might as well call the duck-billed platypus or the osprey or the albino skunk unnatural. Celebrate diversity in nature!

"we are not, genetically, predisposed to do it"
-- What do you mean? It seems to have worked for many races, 'genetically', for quite a long time now.

"People who engage in this unnatural act are doing so purely because they want to, against their natural instinct not to."
-- this is definitely opinion, not fact.

"it can cause stress and depression in those forced into practicing it"
-- So can eating and drinking and having sex and anything else that is forced. It's the forcing that's unnatural, not the monogamy.

"its name is derived from Ancient Greek, and we all know what a bunch of perverts they were, right?"
-- Right!

Anyway this is all great fun and I enjoyed the entry and enjoyed writing this. Thanks! But IMHO it's not pickable in its present form. Sorry!

Sadly Hoo, I agree with Bels- I do want to see it in EG tho'- so what I'd do (although you're not me, clearly) is change the title to 'A study of the practice of monogamy', or something along those lines, and dress it up with more historical and social comment/study.

Alternatively, you could simply give yourself a pat on the back for giving us all a good laiugh, and submit it to the post

That's your call... Aside of the boring Scout bit tho'- and and

Having thought a bit more - in say, chimp society, there is one dominant male, who mates with all the available females and the rest are relegated to the sidelines until a challenge is made and one of them takes over. And there are similarities in lots of other animal societies.

Viewed in that light ....

ok. all i can realy say is that i just read this entry and i am totally confused. the title makes no sense. i didn't get what u were leading up to throughout the entry, and u say research has been done, and the facts and so forth. but u don't say:

who did the research?
what research was done?
were the results tested?
what is monogamy?
what have the facts to do with monogamy?

i could go on. what i am really saying that this entry is certainly not Edited Guide material at the moment.

spook

I'll address Bels, first...

"If you're checking the guidelines, there's one guideline that doesn't check out: "The title should also accurately describe what is in the entry.""

OK, forgive me, but now I'm confused. I've read and re-read the Writing-Guidelines page *very* carefully.

I've even done a search on the word "title" on that page. And I can find nothing, nothing at all, in the Writing Guidelines, that says anything remotely like this.

Specifically, the words "accurately" and "describe" appear *nowhere* on the Writing-Guidelines page. Are you making up your own writing guidelines, Bels, and if so, can I have a copy if I'm expected to work to them to get an Entry into the Edited Guide? Also, did I miss the announcement on the Annoucements page where we went over from the previous official Writing-Guidelines to the ones you have written? I've written some h2g2 Help Pages myself (A642296 and a significant portion of the Peer Review page itself), but when that happened it was clearly announced. Where are the new Writing-Guidelines?

"Two points:

1. Monogamy is not a sexual practice at all."

From Collins Concise Dictionary: "monogamy: n. 1. the state or practice of having only one husband or wife over a period of time. 2. Zool. the practice of having only one mate."

So according to definition 2, monogamy, "the practice of only having only one mate" is a "practice" to do with how many people you mate with. I'm struggling to see how this is anything other than a sexual practice.

"It is simply a particular kind of relationship, which may or may not include sexual practices (it doesn't always)."

Um, according to the actual dictionary definition it is quite specifically to do with the number of sexual partners (i.e. ONE, hence "mono" from the Greek).

"In many societies it has all sorts of other functions, to do with legal matters, ownership of land and property, inheritance, financial support particularly of women and children, religious observances, etc etc."

Ah, hang on. You're talking about the LEGAL definition, i.e. definition 1. By that definition, *your* definition, Bill Clinton, John Major, Angus Deayton, Alan Clarke, Ulrika Jonnson, ALL these people are entirely monogamous. Which is hardly how most people see them, I'm sure...

"2. You can't really call something 'unnatural' if it has been practised by millions of people in civilisations all over the globe for many thousands of years"

I can and shall accurately call something "unnatural" if it is something humans do which is against our fundamental natural drives and done because we think it is a good idea. Circumcision has been practised by millions for thousands of years - you're surely not trying to imply that that's "natural"?!

You see, the thing that shoots your argument in the foot and then again through the side of the head is that word "civilisation". Things we do because we are civilised are, almost by definition, unnatural. Table manners are unnatural. Clothes are unnatural. WHEELS are unnatural.

Unlike the bigots I'm deriding with this entry, I'm not saying there's anything WRONG with things which are "unnatural". I'm pointing out the fact that there's not. I'm sorry you missed the point so wildly.

", and sanctioned by whole tribes, communities, governments, and religions of all kinds, as part and parcel of a certain way of life."

See above note on circumcision.

"Not to mention all the various kinds of animals that practise it entirely naturally. If it is not universal, not the only possible kind of relationship, that does not make it unnatural. The fact is that it suits some species very well."

So does cannibalism. So does incest. So does breathing water and eating dung. Are you suggesting that if ANY animal does it, then it is "natural" for humans to do it? I hope not. It's hardly sound logic.

My point, on the other hand, is that monogamy (definition 2), while KNOWN in nature, is rare among mammals. It is *particularly* rare among mankind's closest "relatives", the great apes. And most people recognise that it is not in human nature to be monogamous. It is to the genetic advantage of the male to impregnate as many females as possible, and it is to the genetic advantage of the female to secure a strong mate who can protect her, while allowing herself to be impregnated by a number of males to widen the gene pool of offspring she produces.

"So I think you need to change the title, and some of the wording of the entry."

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course.

"You claim that the entry presents facts, not opinions. That still doesn't make it balanced, if you select only the facts that suit you and ignore all the other facts!"

You want ALL the facts? I refer you to item 10 in the Writing-Guidelines (that's the *official* writing guidelines page, not the ones you wrote yourself which I haven't seen). In it it says to plan your entry, because if you write more than 2000 words it'll need splitting up. EVERY entry in the guide is the result of the author making a decision about which facts to present and which to leave out. I've made my decision here. You are, of course, free to disagree.

"But let's look at some of these so-called "facts":

"those who have interests in controlling the sex lives of others"
-- What about those who enter into monogamy voluntarily?"

Hmm. Context is everything, isn't it? The context of that particular quote is that I was ridiculing a certain type of person who, for reasons I refuse to speculate on, takes an inordinate interest in the sex lives of other people. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with people who enter into monogamy voluntarily, involuntarily or even oblivious to the fact that they are doing, and EVERYTHING to do with the moralising hypocrites who demand others practice it while not bothering themselves. I'm surprised you didn't understand that...

"it is rare in nature. Some birds do it, only a very few mammals, and among man's closest relatives, the great apes, only gibbons do it."
-- As you admit, it does occur in nature. But being rare doesn't make it unnatural, only rare. You might as well call the duck-billed platypus or the osprey or the albino skunk unnatural. Celebrate diversity in nature!"

OK, I'll hold your head under the water for an hour and you can celebrate the diversity of nature by breathing water like a fish. That's not even rare, so it must, by your "logic" be perfectly natural for humans to do it.

"we are not, genetically, predisposed to do it"
-- What do you mean? It seems to have worked for many races, 'genetically', for quite a long time now.

I mean, Bels, that humans are genetically predisposed to mate with multiple partners. And if you think there are *any* societies where that isn't the case, congratulations! You are the most naive person I've ever come across.

"People who engage in this unnatural act are doing so purely because they want to, against their natural instinct not to."
-- this is definitely opinion, not fact."

I don't want to labour this point, but on that you're just flat out wrong. For humans, monogamy is a CHOICE, not an instinct. Fact.

"it can cause stress and depression in those forced into practicing it"
-- So can eating and drinking and having sex and anything else that is forced. It's the forcing that's unnatural, not the monogamy."

See above.

"its name is derived from Ancient Greek, and we all know what a bunch of perverts they were, right?"
-- Right!"

This is something we doctors call a "joke". Its position at the end of the list gives a clue that it takes the role in the "joke" of something experts refer to as a "punchline". The study of humour is a rich and varied field. I suggest you might like to do some research in that area before reading this entry again.



H.

OK, now ZSF...

"The inference is ... what?"

Do you need me to spell it out?

The point of this entry, like many others, is to present certain facts about the world in a way which will make the reader THINK.

I might actually express my opinion explicitly in this thread at some point, but for now, I'd rather leave it to people to read the entry and make their own minds up what I mean.

H.

KerrAvon:

"I do want to see it in EG tho'"

So, you're a Scout. So pick it!

"you could simply give yourself a pat on the back for giving us all a good laiugh"

pat, pat, pat.

If you had to think even a little bit...

H.

Nice one Hoo, I always had my suspicions about you, it is gratifying to find they were so well founded.

Bels is confusing morality with biology. Biologically humans are - at their MOST restrained - serial monogamists. The reason for this is that the evolutionary pressures on males and on females are completely different.

If you were a prehistoric human, or a pre-human humanoid, your children would survive best if they were reared by more than one parent until they were old enough to gather (if not hunt) for themselves; let's say until they were three or thereabouts. (Why do you think small children put everything in their mouths. That is right. They are gathering and eating).

For females, this means that they need a male around for about four years or so, to help them raise the child.

For males, the more females they can seduce who are *already* in a monogamous situation the better. It is to their advantage to have other males raise their children.

So our species has developed with two successful but different evolutionary strategies. The overall length of the relationship is irrelevant in evolutionary terms, so long as there are what appear to be monogomous relationships which last four or so years each throughout the breeding life of the woman. In fact the first two four year stretches are the most important, because elder siblings, sisters in particular, can be trained in parenthood by helping with the babies.

And guess what?

The rosy glow of being in love lasts 3 or 4 years.

We are a species of serial monogamists, whether we like it or not.

A score of centuries of morality has no hope against scores of millenia of evolution.

Ben

also:

4. Be Instructive, Informative and Factual

i did nt find this to be easy to understand, factual, or informative. i found ot very confusing.

and btw - just ebcause an entry meets the writing guidlines, doesn't ean it is suitable for the edited guide. if everything that met the guidlines was, then there would be entries in the edited guide like this:


Pen Colours

You can by pens in a multitude of colours including red, green, black and blue.


that is not suitable for the edited guide, and neither is this entry.

spook

And now, spook...

"ok. all i can realy say is that i just read this entry and i am totally confused. the title makes no sense."

OK, now *I'm* confused.

What, about the title, is unclear? The title is "Unnatural Sexual Practices", and the entry is very clearly about the reasons why some people, who apparently have a problem with "unnatural sexual practices", choose, for reasons of ignorance, NATURAL sexual practices to campaign against. It points out that there IS an unnatural sexual practice which is RECOMMENDED by churches and other moralisers. It expects the reader to draw their own conclusions.

"i didn't get what u were leading up to throughout the entry"

Well, I hope you got the punchline, at least.

" and u say research has been done, and the facts and so forth. but u don't say:

who did the research?"

Um... I did. You know, "h2g2 Researcher"? There's a badge on my personal space and everything. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Or am I missing something?

"what research was done?"

A lifetime's interest in zoology, human psychology and behaviour and comparitive sociology.

"were the results tested?"

Eh? The results were the results. How could/why would you test them?

"what is monogamy?"

See dictionary definition provided above.

"what have the facts to do with monogamy?"

I'm afraid if you have to ask what monogamy IS, I don't think I can be of any help with this question.

"i could go on. what i am really saying that this entry is certainly not Edited Guide material at the moment."

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course. I thought I'd made it pretty straightforward...

H.

Help Page, English Usage in the Edited Guide A266131, see under 'Titles, Headers and Subheaders'

"also:

4. Be Instructive, Informative and Factual

i did nt find this to be easy to understand, factual, or informative. i found ot very confusing."

I hate to be judgemental, I really do. But since you're condemning my writing, stand by.

If your ability to write is any indication of your ability to read, then I'm not in the least surprised you found what I've written confusing. This is not MY fault. Here's some text from the Peer Review page (text I wrote myself, actually): "Guide Entries are aimed, in the main, at the educated layman". From what you've written above, that's not you. Sorry.

"and btw - just ebcause an entry meets the writing guidlines, doesn't ean it is suitable for the edited guide."

Would it be out of order to ask what the f**k the point of the Writing Guidelines are then?

H.