Oh, for fuck’s sake. I started to refute this point by point, but I’m not even going to bother. It will make no difference because you are deeply enmeshed in your emotional reactions and will not be swayed by data, or science, or truth. What on earth makes you believe that polyamory is a new thing? That’s just idiotic and readily disprovable. In fact, I’ve already documented it to you repeatedly, which is why I won’t bother with the rest. There are some elements of what I’ve said that are up for debate, but most of it is firmly rooted in contemporary science.

Eisler is not a gender studies major — she’s a system’s scientist whose meticulous research has had an effect in many fields, including history, literature, philosophy, art, economics, psychology, sociology, education, human rights, organizational development, political science, and healthcare. The Chalice and the Blade has been translated into 26 languages and Eisler was the only woman selected for inclusion in Macrohistory and Macrohistorians for her work as a cultural historian and evolutionary theorist.

Nancy Bonvillian is an anthropologist citing anthropological research. Unless you can specifically refute the claims that she’s made and specifically the ones that I’ve cited, dismissing it as ideological is weak and pointless. The same goes for Eisler. I referenced specific quotes from her book made by scientists and unless you can refute those specific quotes, you have no standing to making sweeping generalizations about other things that she may or may not have said. This kind of scatter-shot debate style hoping that you will hit on something is lazy and imprecise.

If you leave these kinds of arrogant comments on my stories in the future I will mute them and not respond.