“We have good news and bad news. The good news is that the dismal version of human sexuality reflected in the standard narrative is mistaken. Men have not evolved to be deceitful cads, nor have millions of years shaped women into lying, two-timing gold-diggers. But the bad news is that the amoral agencies of evolution have created in us a species with a secret it just can’t keep. Homo sapiens evolved to be shamelessly, undeniably, inescapably sexual. Lusty libetines. Rakes, rogues, and roués. Tomcats and sex kittens. Horndogs. Bitches in heat.”
And if that paragraph doesn’t appeal to you, neither will this book, or the rest of this review.
The book is Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What it Means for Modern Relationships. It’s written by researchers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá.
Like so much else that I study and seek to understand, this topic sends me running to our evolutionary heritage. This is, for me, the first step in gaining understanding, whether we are determining what we eat, how we live, why we act the way we do. This phase of information-gathering is not the end, but rather the beginning of the process. Our natural heritage is morality-neutral – nature cares not whether you eat/behave/live/die in this manner; it’s simply the manner in which our species have evolved to thrive. Natural selection isn’t inherently good or bad. But it is the framework upon which to study what behaviors have served us well in our survival through the millenia. (And a side note, which won’t surprise anyone who knows me, we learn again how things got sideways in our prehistory with the advent of agriculture.)
And our species has thrived on, not to put too fine a point on it, sluttiness. If you pause reading right here, you can probably answer the next question, WHY, without much help. But this book offers a lot of fun in seeking the answer.
It has long been known that we share an ancestor with other apes, and that our closest relative is the chimpanzee. What hasn’t been known until more recently is that we are as equidistant, evolutionarily, to the bonobo. It is in observing these two societies, bonobos and chimpanzees, that we get a full picture of social behavior that runs a broader spectrum than initially understood in terms of how we as homo sapiens have evolved. We have so many years of social/religious pressure adding to our history, it’s difficult to determine what is natural and what is cultural, and watching our not-so-influenced relatives give us insight into our own behavior.
What we have discovered is that while chimpanzees exhibit behavior that shows reproduction-based sexual activity, territoriality, exchange of female sexual favor for protection and food, bonobos behave quite differently. Bonobo societies use sexual activity for conflict resolution, tribal bonding, celebration, and includes multiple partners/genders/acts. Additionally, bonobos, like humans and unlike chimpanzees, have hidden ovulation, and therefore hidden paternity, which allows the entire tribe to take an interest in all the offspring of the group.
There are only a handful of books I have sent to all of my adult children, and this is one of them. My kids are all progressive, open-minded, hippie-types, and as with all things, I love getting their feedback and observations, particularly when it concerns science, culture, and relationships. They hold progressive ideas about marriage, monogamy, and relationships based on their own knowledge and experiences, and I look forward to having our family book discussion on this, fractured though it might be through time and distance!
The divorce rate in the US currently stands at about 50%. If you were a car manufacturer, and you installed brakes on your cars that failed 50% of the time, you would consider this an absolute emergency. If you were an investor, and you lost clients’ money 50% of the time, you should look for a new line of work. If your restaurant food made people sick after one of every 2 visits, you’d be shut down in a big hurry. There’s a problem with marriage in the United States, that doesn’t seem to be confined to any category: age, religion, region, or race. And because our religious and political entities have an interest in keeping the status quo, our citizenry finds itself, as it so often does, restricted from even asking questions and pushing back in the face of these dismal statistics. The authors of the book don’t do a lot of moralizing – don’t go out and join a hippie commune, but perhaps share the book with your spouse and marriage counselor. It’s a conversation we should be having.
“Could it be that the atomic isolation of the husband-wife nucleus with an orbiting child or two is in fact a culturally imposed aberration for our species – as ill-suited to our evolved tendencies as corsets, chastity belts, and suits of armor? Dare we ask whether mothers, fathers, and children are all being shoe-horned into a family structure that suits none of us? Might the contemporary pandemics of fracturing families, parental exhaustion, and confused, resentful children be predictable consequences of what is, in truth, a distorted and distorting family structure inappropriate for our species?”
Remember the documentary about the penguins? Remember how we anthropomorphised that charming movie? We aspired to be monogamous like the penguins, devoted to the nth degree to our offspring and to one another? Churches showed this as worship service, in an effort to make us learn how very, very, ever so important it was to be like the penguin! Calling them model parents, holding them up as an ideal example of monogamy, this film was lovely. Touching. And in its defense, that year spent with that egg on the ice was pretty accurately portrayed. Those raging Antarctic blizzards don’t lend themselves much to extramarital temptation. However….
“Once Junior is swimming with the other 11-month-olds – the penguin equivalent of kindergarten – fidelity is quickly forgotten, divorce is quick, automatic, and painless, and Mom and Dad are back on the penguin prowl. With a breeding adult typically living 30 years or more, these “model parents” have at least 2 dozen “families” in a lifetime. Did someone say “ideal example of monogamy”?
You should read this book. Every page reveals an interesting piece of the puzzle of human behavior. Some of it is laugh-out-loud funny, and some of it is “who’s reading my email?” accurate. I’ll throw in a couple of additional teasers: there’s a chapter on why a human penis is shaped like it is (try to guess first), and an entire chapter devoted to multiple female orgasm (as trippy as it sounds). I have a copy I’m happy to loan, and there’s a Kindle version too.
After all that good stuff, let me issue one final caveat. I HATEHATEHATED the final chapters. After 300 pages of serious science data, cross-referenced sources, humor, light, the perfect balance of every word, the last chapter devolved into a Dear Abby column, and I have no idea why. The authors have even added another chapter to the newest editions addressing all the complaints they received about that, but it was an unsatisfying explanation. However, the totality of the book still rises about that imperfection. This one’s a winner. Read it, then tell me about reading it!
I envy you getting to read it for the first time.
Thanks for reading!
July 7, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Couple of questions, from your synopsis and not having read the book: Isn’t monogamy an evolved behavior common in virtually all cultures throughout human history rather than an aberration of true human nature? That is, if we should be behaving more like penguins, why didn’t that just naturally occur?
And, isn’t the high divorce rate a recent phenomenon made possible by the relative ease of life in modern, industrial societies, in which the pressures of natural selection have been greatly reduced?
July 7, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Great questions Phil!
The book addresses those too. I don’t think monogamy is an evolved behavior; I think it’s cultural/religious pressure that leads to that. Marriage itself was an institution of property exchange. The book profiles several people groups that are still very open sexually, and I think most cultures would have been until influenced otherwise. There are very very few monogamous species; it just doesn’t make reproductive sense. I wouldn’t argue that divorce has become easier and more accessible, but that’s only a symptom of the greater problem of our behavior.
Josh suggested we use this book for a club selection – I think that’s a great idea! I’d love to hear your input on it. Watch the Freethinkers’ site for our next yahoo!
July 7, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Are we starting a book club? Then yeah, this would be a good selection.
July 7, 2012 at 11:46 pm
I’m not so sure that I’d be so quick to conclude that only cultural and religious pressure leads to monogamy. Consider – it is only in the last 100 years of human existence that there have been successful cures and/or treatments for a variety of STDs that otherwise can have serious-unto-fatal results. It is not such a jump from that to conclude that you could enhance your own chances at lengthy survival, as well as increasing the chances of procreation, in a monogamous situation. Consider, too, that the historical record indicates that, with certain exceptions, there have been gender roles established as a result of biological functions and abilities, e.g., the male, generally with greater upper body strength, has filled the conflict roles (hunting, war, etc.). The female, faced with the biological necessity for carrying children to term and providing for caring for them until they are able to survive on their own, has tended, again with exceptions, towards the roles in and around child-raising. In that context, I would postulate that monogamy again could have a strong survival function…the male has some assurance that he will be able to procreate and that his offspring will survive, and the female has some assurance of protection during those vulnerable periods.
July 7, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Next on your book list should be the Continuum Concept. It goes right along with this!
July 8, 2012 at 12:27 pm
The notion of women as property is disturbing, as seen here:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/08/world/asia/afghanistan-public-execution/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
But I’m not sure we can blame that on religion. It seems better explained with Dawkins’ selfish gene theory: men want to ensure that it is their genes that are impregnating the woman, not some other guy’s. That’s why powerful men tend to have harems who are off limits to other men. And the automatic reaction of a typical man on finding out his wife has been unfaithful is anger and jealousy.
So, as much as I would like to be in favor of a free-sex society (especially when it’s a woman promoting it :), I fear it would ultimately lead to rivalry and trouble with men. A possible explanation of the bonobos is that all the members in a given group share common genes.
July 9, 2012 at 8:40 pm
To my dear professors —
I love your comments. And I know my post didn’t make things too clear. The standard evolutionary narrative does indeed postulate that all of those things you mentioned did create an environment conducive to monogamy. So much of our common relative study has been built around chimpanzees, including the male drive to sow his seed, so to speak, and protect his harem, and the female drive has been to seek a mate who can provide for her children. However, our equally close relative, the bonobo, reveals that when the sex is abundant, and voluntary, those features factor in less and less; the drive seems to go from the selfish gene, to the perpetuation of the tribe, which insures to an even greater degree the species’ survival.
And while I don’t think one book can be accepted as a conclusive when it seems to be in at least some conflict with conventional wisdom (a phrase I abhor, it won’t surprise you to know), I think it’s research worth pursuing. I know better than to try to fit the details to the circumstances, but if true, this does appear to explain a great deal about human behavior. So, as I wrote, it’s a conversation worth having, and a book certainly worth reading!
Phil, I am going to post the book in our Freethought group as a possible discussion evening…I’m off to Vegas for a week, then riding my bike across Iowa (because why not?), then we’ll have a big throwdown at my house in August.
Mr. F-D, you’re welcome to join us if you are ever at your old stomping grounds.
July 13, 2012 at 7:07 pm
From a story I saw today:
“Officials for The Amazing Meeting, or TAM, said Wednesday (July 11) that women would make up 31 percent of the 1,200 conference attendees, down from 40 percent the year before. A month before the conference, pre-registration was only 18 percent women, organizers said.
The explanations are many — the bad economy, that women, as caregivers, are less able to get away, and that more men than women identify as skeptics, whose worldview rejects the supernatural and focuses on science and rationality.
But in the weeks preceding TAM, another possible explanation has roiled the nontheist community. Online forums have crackled with charges of sexism in TAM’s leadership and calls for the ouster of D.J. Grothe, the male president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, TAM’s organizer. In June, Rebecca Watson, a skeptic blogger and speaker, canceled her TAM appearance because, she said on her blog, she does “not feel welcome or safe.”
Don’t know how true or false or somewhere in between this may be….just be careful out there in Vegas.
July 15, 2012 at 1:49 pm
TAM is where I am! I’m going to blog about it afterward, and I saw that article, as well as that sentiment in the online blogs, but it certainly hasn’t been my experience. My daughter and I are here, my other daughter and I came last year, and we are having a fabulous time! I’ll blog about the speakers and workshops in the sliver of time between the end of this and the beginning of our Iowa bike ride.
Thanks for the heads-up on the article!
July 16, 2012 at 12:33 am
That’s where I figured you’d be, given your philosophical bent…..hence the posting. “Forewarned is forearmed.”