Tags
animals, assumptions, colonialism, evolution, evolutionary psychology, female-dominated, marriage, Monogamy, polyamory, pregnancy, primates, promiscuity, psychology, rape, same-sex, sex, sexual assault, sexuality
Monogamy, marriage, cheating, divorce, jealousy:
“While we don’t dispute that these patterns play out in many parts of the modern world, we don’t see them as elements of human nature so much as adaptations to social conditions—many of which were introduced with the advent of agriculture no more than ten thousand years ago. These behaviours and predilections are not biologically programmed traits of our species; they are evidence of the human brain’s flexibility and the creative potential of community.”
So starts my new favourite feel-good non fiction! Sex at Dawn is a page-turner, despite essentially being an in-depth sociological conversation with Victorian-age Darwin in light of recent primate findings to suss out where the first geneticist was right, and where he may have gone wrong.
A few more excerpts:
“The standard narrative of the origins and nature of human sexuality claims to explain the development of a deceitful, reluctant sort of sexual monogamy. According to this oft-told tale, heterosexual men and women are pawns in a proxy war directed by our opposed genetic agendas. The whole catastrophe, we’re told, results from the basic biological designs of males and females. Men strain to spread their cheap and plentiful seed far and wide (while still trying to control one or a few females in order to increase their paternity certainty). Meanwhile, women are guarding their limited supply of metabolically expensive eggs from unworthy suitors. But once they’ve roped in a provider-husband, they’re quick to hike up their skirts (when ovulating) for quick-and-dirty clandestine mating opportunities with square-jawed men of obvious genetic superiority. It’s not a pretty picture.”
“So in order to trace the deepest roots of human sexuality, it’s vital to look beneath the thin crust of recent human history. Until agriculture, human beings evolved in societies organized around an insistence on sharing just about everything. But all this sharing doesn’t make anyone a noble savage. These pre-agricultural societies were no nobler than you are when you pay your taxes or insurance premiums. Universal, culturally imposed sharing was simply the most effective way for our highly social species to minimize risk. Sharing and self-interest, as we shall see, are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, what many anthropologists call fierce egalitarianism was the predominant pattern of social organization around the world for many millennia before the advent of agriculture.”
Bonobos and chimps: our two closest ancestors. While careful to avoid drawing quick conclusions, the book suggests an alternative view of human sexuality by embracing bonobos as being genetically equidistant to humans as chimps, and therefore deserving an equal chance at informing our projections upon early humans’ behaviour.
While much has been gathered about chimps, bonobos have entered the scientific scene more recently, and been unfortunately omitted from much primate research. We find that whether in the wild or in captivity, bonobos are uniformly peaceful, cooperative, and delightfully highly sexual. Sex is enthusiastically enjoyed by female bonobos whether in a group or a couple, with male or female bonobos, and with familiar or alien groups – sometimes all in the same day. Male sexuality seems to be a little less plastic and certainly enjoys less longevity: males typically ejaculate after a few seconds and then lose interest. Sound familiar?
Why should we care about bonobos when so much has been observed about chimps and other primates? And what does polyamory have to do with all of this?
It seems that we have a lot more in common when it comes to sex and love with the bonobo than any other primate, chimps included.
Let’s look at size. While other primates have large disparities between the sexes, both humans and bonobos have in common a difference of males a mere 10-20% larger than females. Primates such as gorillas have polyandrous organizations with the largest and most aggressive male mating with the group’s females, which causes size to be selected for, resulting in male gorillas being about twice the size of females. Male gorilla -ahem- parts, however, do not enjoy nearly the relative size of bonobos or humans. This is because, unlike male humans or bonobos, male gorillas will only need their testes once in a blue moon when the females are in heat. Gorillas, not needing an on-demand storage center outside of their bodies for large amounts of sperm, keep their small testes inside of their bodies. Bonobos, on the other hand, have the largest testes of the primates, and keep them cool on the outside of their bodies to ensure they can have sex frequently and at any time, regardless of females’ fertility. And if you guessed that human gonads were second only to the bonobo, you’d be right.
Measurements aside, other striking similarities exist between bonobos and human kind and no others. Sex is used to get to know new people, deepen bonds, say sorry, wind down after a long day, or pass a lazy afternoon. Deep eye-gazing is common during love-making. The female is unmistakably vocal in her enjoyment, which turns on not only those who she’s engaging with, but those in her surroundings. Females practice genital-to-genital sex with each other. While males have characteristically short bursts of sexual activity which they then need a recovery period from, females “last longer” and can have multiple orgasms. Wait, what if those females could have sex with multiple partners to help satisfy her…?
This is another one where I am going to have to say: just read it. It’ll even tell you how monogamy is making human male’s balls smaller! I read it in a night and woke up smiling at it beside me the next morning.
And a last note, which I dedicate in particular to those who believe that domination and rape are unfortunate but unavoidable truths of human existence:
“As with bonobos, where female coalitions are the ultimate social authority and individual females need not fear the larger males, human societies in which women are “sassy and confident,” as Barnes described the Mosuo girls—free to express their minds and sexuality without fear of shame or persecution—tend to be far more comfortable places for most men than societies ruled by a male elite. Maybe matriarchal societies are so difficult for Western male anthropologists to recognize because they expect a culture where men are suffering under the high heels of women—a reverse reflection of the long-standing male oppression of women in Western cultures. Instead, observing a society where most of the men are lounging about relaxed and happy, they conclude they’ve found yet another patriarchy, thereby missing the point entirely.” ….
“Remember this when some loudmouth at the bar declares that “patriarchy is universal, and always has been!” It’s not, and it hasn’t. But rather than feel threatened, we’d recommend that our male readers ponder this: Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy. Got that, fellas? If you’re unhappy at the amount of sexual opportunity in your life, don’t blame the women. Instead, make sure they have equal access to power, wealth, and status. Then watch what happens.”
Love,
Clay