Book: Sex at Dawn

Like, our entire concept of love and romantic bonding is built around the idea that 2 people meet, fall in love, get married and have a baby; almost every romantic book, play, novelization, song, painting, poem, music video, article, lecture, workshop, website, etc. is focused on this idea, right? But I've always thought it was just silly to think that love, with all its complexities and mysteries and miracles, could be squeezed into a single connection with one other human being and put under wraps until that relationship ended and then it was applied to a new partners and so on.

Looking at movies and songs, you'd think NRE lasted forever. All the love songs that sell are based on a NRE feeling, that intensity: you're perfect, I want you and no one else til the end of time.

Songs based on a marriage 7 years in don't sell so well. ;)
 
..........
Songs based on a marriage 7 years in don't sell so well. ;)

Gotta love this Mags !! :)

But back to the OP question about roots and survival of the mono.

From almost any angle you want to analyze it from it really comes down to a control tactic. As evil and manipulative as that probably sounds, it has it's innocent side too. As a species we're kind of dependent on control. Our security gets shaken unless we have our hand on the control lever - or at minimum, believe that someone else we trust has. So some of the junk that comes with monogamy is a pretty easy sell. We're offered some safety and security (supposedly). It's only after we discover that the sweet security we were sold was only a thin coating over something much more bitter. And that the REAL security only comes from our own internal strength.

Evolution is a slow process...............

GS
 
I mean, from a practical, survival kind of standpoint, having more than 2 people in a relationship seems really beneficial. But there also seems to be a number, a tipping point as it were, where the relationship would be too large and clunky, at least with regards to intimate connections running smoothly. I imagine at that point the group would splinter off somehow and form a new family.

Trust the aspiring social scientist to start the nit-picking!

If we are talking of purely human evolution, there are many explanations as to why monogamy is the most popular (even in societies where some form of non-monogamy is condoned, it tends to be a minority relationship model) relationship form. Of course, when we are talking about monogamous vs. polygamous societies, we need to acknowledge that most known forms of culturally-sanctioned non-monogamy are in practice polygyny (having many wives) of the rich elite men. Some anthropologists have put forwards an argument that wives in most societies are akin to any other form of goods to be exchanged and accumulated among leading class men. This theory has some historical support from the fact that the ideal of female sexuality being strictly marital in expression has always been more heavily policed in the higher echelons of society. During much of Western history, rape was a crime against another man's rights of ownership, not against the woman who was raped.

Comparing monogamy and polyamory is hard because polyamory is a form of relating, whereas monogamy refers to the institution of marriage specifically. The opposite of polyamory would be monoamory, such as the opposite of polygamy would be monogamy. As to your point of relationships becoming too unwieldly with too many participants, this is only in assuming that each new partner would join the existing family unit in what could more aptly be termed as 'group marriage'. Since I guess the majority of polys are not in closed poly-fi arrangements, the practical limits of how many partners you could possibly have tend to be a bit different in origin.

Additional differences: lifetime monogamy vs. serial monogamy; double vs. single standard; monogamy as an ideal and monogamy as a practice; hierarchal vs. egalitarian polyamory etc.
 
I believe monogamy becoming the norm is due to wanting to know who's whose child. There didn't use to be a way to tell who was the father otherwise, and when property started existing (in the form of land or whatever) and needing to be passed along, men would have wanted to make sure they passed it to their own children and not someone else's.

I believe that's the reason why monogamy was generally expected of women but not so much of males.

Then with gender equality came the notion that both should. Often gender equality comes in making the gender that has more freedom join the other rather than the opposite (or a compromise). It's rare that the gender who had less rights suddenly gets them all.

I think now we need to work on making it socially acceptable to decide for yourself what works for you without having to follow such models if they don't work for you.
 
I'm seeing the beginnings of the brainwashing in two of my daughters right now -- the 14 and 15 year olds. So much talk about cheating and all the drama and judging over it -- as if we expect kids at that age to "commit" to just one person, for the rest of time! I am appalled, at what my girls are being conditioned to believe. It's like watching them read dated history books, and sitting in class with a biased, ignorant teacher. I'm so glad you started this thread, because it will sure help me educate them, as to the history of all this nonsense. I just downloaded "Sex at Dawn" on my Kindle, so I think that will help too.

"Those who do not know history,
are condemned to repeat it"

-- right???

(I must say I am thankful to the reality tv show, "Sister Wives" -- my 14-year old keeps asking, "When can we get one?")
(I have yet to reply, "Honeybabes, we're actually much, much closer to getting a brother husband..." ;) )
 
I believe monogamy becoming the norm is due to wanting to know who's whose child. There didn't use to be a way to tell who was the father otherwise, and when property started existing (in the form of land or whatever) and needing to be passed along, men would have wanted to make sure they passed it to their own children and not someone else's.

I believe that's the reason why monogamy was generally expected of women but not so much of males.

Then with gender equality came the notion that both should. Often gender equality comes in making the gender that has more freedom join the other rather than the opposite (or a compromise). It's rare that the gender who had less rights suddenly gets them all.

I think now we need to work on making it socially acceptable to decide for yourself what works for you without having to follow such models if they don't work for you.

Loving this thread. I'm an Anthropology nerd, so this is something I've spent plenty of time discussing and reading about. I too think it has to do with property. If you look into the history of marriage, it basically all comes down to property rights in agricultural societies at its very root. In a hunter-gatherer society, what is the necessity of monogamy?

That's not to say there aren't plenty of "monogamous" tribes of people out there... there are. But I did place that word in quotes, because we're primates, and we get around. Even in what we regard as "monogamous" primates, they still have sex partners outside of their primary mate, and it's not uncommon at all.

I would consider the hypothesis that Humans have had a variety of relationship types in different settings for millions of years, to include monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, and group marriage, which could explain why different people need different things. How to test this? Now THERE'S yer problem...
 
This is an interesting thread. I don't think there is much I could add to it, as I don't really have a great knowledge of polyamory. But I want to read more of it nontheless. =]
 
Just got my copy. :D Yay!
 
I believe monogamy becoming the norm is due to wanting to know who's whose child. There didn't use to be a way to tell who was the father otherwise, and when property started existing (in the form of land or whatever) and needing to be passed along, men would have wanted to make sure they passed it to their own children and not someone else's.

I believe that's the reason why monogamy was generally expected of women but not so much of males.

True to a degree. However, there are societies (the Ashanti of West Africa comes immediately to mind) where property rights are transferred along the female line, i.e. men inherit their mother's brother. Or women might own the land entirely whereas men own ceremonial equipment and uncles initiate their nephews into the secret men's societies or whatever. Property from an sociological POV is not a uniform concept as we in the West understand value.

From a strictly biological POV, men should invest in the children of their womb-sisters, for a lack of better word, i.e. women with whom they share a mother. Whereas before the advent of modern technologies of re-production, women always knew who was their child, men never really do. I think it's a trade-off between the avails of pregnancy and labour/security in the continuation of your line.

There are a lot of theories of 'monogamy' (most often single-standard) being the compromise between a woman wanting to have a strong male partner care for her and her offspring and a man wanting to impregnate as many women as possible somewhere in the dawn of time. I personally think these theories are way too biased by what we (think we) observe from modern and historical behavior standards. For example, these theories never explain why having an unrelated man take care of her and her baby would be so much more preferable for a woman than having a close relative be the man in the house (or the cave). Also, why a society would necessarily function better with multiple male-female couples than with larger family groups composed of women with men primarily affiliated with each other and their mother's/sister's house is never explained either.
 
I would consider the hypothesis that Humans have had a variety of relationship types in different settings for millions of years, to include monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, and group marriage, which could explain why different people need different things. How to test this? Now THERE'S yer problem...

I agree. I think that instead of being 'biologically hard-wired for (serial) monogamy', humans posses enough monogamous tendencies to give rise to the phenomenon of (serial, double- and single standard) monogamy. I've always found the need to explain how could evolution allow for homosexual behavior to arise be somewhat curious obsession. I feel instead of assuming heterosexuality is the one true evolutionary way, it's much more probable than in the infinite variety of human (and animal) sexual expression, those who posses strong heterosexual tendencies (i.e. manage to have enough of PIV sex) tend to reproduce faster and in greater numbers than those for whom heterosexual behavior is more incidental. Heterosexuality is not natural, just popular, because some of it's expressions tend to lead into conception and thus passing on of those tendencies to offspring.

The trouble for me in socio-biology that attempts to answer questions like 'How did monogamy/male dominance/homosexuality originate?' is that they take granted that we live in the best possible world from an evolutionary viewpoint. Evolution is blind; it would not care if humans never evolved. It does not strive for the best/most organized/most functional lifeforms, but rather by accident favors those individuals whose traits, again quite accidentally, match the environmental changes occurring. Recent evidence indicates that Neanderthals did not go extinct because they were less smart or evolved than Homo Sapiens; they were simply highly adjusted to very cold climes, and when the climate started to warm up, they lost the habitat they were most comfortable in.

Sorry, a ramble, but I do so like trashing evolutionary psychology.
 
Heterosexuality is not natural, just popular, because some of it's expressions tend to lead into conception and thus passing on of those tendencies to offspring.

Erm, that is usually what evolutionary biologists mean by natural. Have you read The Selfish Gene? Of course, natural doesn't mean right.

There must be some evolutionary influence on behaviour, otherwise different species wouldn't have such different (usual) sexual patterns. For example, the other two chimpanzee species tend to use sex the way we'd use a polite handshake. Why don't humans?

My favourite book on this stuff is The Red Queen, by Matt Ridley. The later chapters are basically an exercise in comparative anthropology, except that instead of looking at different tribes he looks at different species. Birds in particular have a lot of different mating patterns, depending on the species' environment.
 
In my opinion, all forms of sexuality are natural. I mean, what's the alternative, them being artificial?

In comparison, no cars or pairs of glasses or computers are natural. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop using them.

Good point about how you can pass things through females. I think then I would add a lack of consideration for women. In a lot of societies, they had few rights, and using them to pass property might have felt like giving them too much importance.

I was reading the Amicus's closing arguments for the current BC polygamy case. One part I found interesting was a quote about how monogamy advantages men from a Darwinian point of view.

The basis was that, survival-wise, it's best for men to have as many mates as possible, and for women to have mates who can support the children they have. Therefore the Darwinian point of views sees these as the goals, and nothing about love, freedom, jealousy or anything like that.

From a Darwinian point of view, with polygamy women have the option to marry rich men. If they're already married, no problem, and they can support several wives. From that point of view, it's better for them than monogamy, in which men get "taken", and women have to marry men who are poorer.
Polygamy results in rich men having many wives, poor men having none. (Notice this is focusing on polygyny. I believe it's because it's also a study on patriarchal societies).
So, polygyny is better for all women (they all get to pick a mate who can support their kid better compared to who they could with monogamy) as well as for some men. But it's bad for some other men.

Therefore, the quote mentions how monogamy becomes a compromise between rich men and poor men. Rich men keep having first pick in mates, but have to limit themselves to one at a time. Poor men get to have wives that "trickle down" due to not being able to marry already married rich men. Women end up, on average, poorer and less supported, as do their children.

It was an interesting take, as people are quick to talk about how polygyny is bad for women. I thought a study about how monogamy might have been put in place to advantage men was definitely an interesting read.
 
Absolutely fascinating thread. WOW. If only more people would question this stuff!
 
There must be some evolutionary influence on behaviour, otherwise different species wouldn't have such different (usual) sexual patterns. For example, the other two chimpanzee species tend to use sex the way we'd use a polite handshake. Why don't humans?

Actually according to Sex at Dawn, only the bonobos do this. Chimps do not, they are more territorial, and the females only have sex at estrus, not throughout the menstrual cycle like bonbos. Also, bonobos have lots of gay/lesbian contact. It's so refreshing to see another ape species that is more like humans.

Quite a few humans do use sex as a handshake or a temporary release! Ever been in a bar at closing time?

Remember the hippies? Love the one you're with?
 
Actually according to Sex at Dawn, only the bonobos do this. Chimps do not, they are more territorial, and the females only have sex at estrus, not throughout the menstrual cycle like bonbos. Also, bonobos have lots of gay/lesbian contact. It's so refreshing to see another ape species that is more like humans.

Quite a few humans do use sex as a handshake or a temporary release! Ever been in a bar at closing time?

Remember the hippies? Love the one you're with?

Correct - Bonobos are about the only species of primate that have such open, plentiful, and unassuming sex. That being said however, even ape species which are considered to be "monogamous" are often observed having incidental sexual contact with individuals who are not their mates, often times repeatedly with the same other individual for years. ...a sort of "affair", if you will.

I suppose the point is that NO primates are actually monogamous.
 
Erm, that is usually what evolutionary biologists mean by natural. Have you read The Selfish Gene?[/URL].

I don't mean evolutionary biology as a science, but its bastardization as 'evolutionary psychology' which makes assumptions about the evolutionary basis for behavior in modern humans. Although natural is not right, the proponents of this philosophy do emphasize that changing sex roles, for example, is basically a futile attempt because men's philandering and violent behaviors are so ingrained in the human genetic make-up. This pseudo-science presents itself as value-neutral, but has very strong Social Darwinist undertones and owes its birth to a specific historical situation where religion is again gaining ground in science and politics. With the onslaught of the religious right in American politics, for example, many natural scientists have succumbed to making natural science into a pseudo-religion/world explanation which makes it easy to discredit science as a tool, as well.

I have not read the Selfish Gene but know the basic argument behind it, which of course isn't the same thing as having actually read and understood it as it was originally formulated by the author. The word 'selfish', however, illustrates to me well the basic fallacy behind this school of thought; anthropomorphizing nature and evolution to have goals, mental states etc.

There must be some evolutionary influence on behaviour, otherwise different species wouldn't have such different (usual) sexual patterns. For example, the other two chimpanzee species tend to use sex the way we'd use a polite handshake. Why don't humans?

Yeah, absolutely. There are probably no social behaviors in modern humans which could not have an evolutionary effect, and which thus could not become the 'evolutionary basis' behind future behaviors in our species. However, assuming a hypothetical past situation and THEN assuming a unilateral, as opposed to multiple co-existing, evolutionary progress for some behaviors we witness in today's populations is mere speculation; entertaining, but garbing it as 'science' is unfounded.
 
According to Sex at Dawn, bonobos do not practice infanticide. Offspring are cared for by the tribe, and even nursed by multiple "mothers." Knowing what I do about lactation, this means the infant/toddler bonobo drinks in the DNA from several mothers, thereby, to an extent, actually becoming biologically the child of more than one mother!

It seems to me the male bonobos are far too busy chillin and fuckin to worry about whose kid is whose.

(God, I wish I was a bonobo...)

We all know data collected from animals in captivity is not as valuable as that from wild animals in their natural habitat. My understanding is that there has been quite a bit of research done on bonobos in the wild, thought it is very difficult because of their remote location in a politically volatile country (Rep of Congo/Zaire).
 
I don't mean evolutionary biology as a science, but its bastardization as 'evolutionary psychology' which makes assumptions about the evolutionary basis for behavior in modern humans. Although natural is not right, the proponents of this philosophy do emphasize that changing sex roles, for example, is basically a futile attempt because men's philandering and violent behaviors are so ingrained in the human genetic make-up. This pseudo-science presents itself as value-neutral, but has very strong Social Darwinist undertones and owes its birth to a specific historical situation where religion is again gaining ground in science and politics. With the onslaught of the religious right in American politics, for example, many natural scientists have succumbed to making natural science into a pseudo-religion/world explanation which makes it easy to discredit science as a tool, as well.

Is your hypothesis then that human behavior is non-evolutionary? It's important to keep science value-neutral in order to better understand the world and our species. Setting out under the assumption that men and women are exactly equal in all respects is fallacious - we are a sexually dimorphic species in form, and chemically dimorphic also - science has shown clearly the effect that different chemical landscapes have on the way our brains operate. I'll agree that drawing instant conclusions to support traditional gender roles is nonscientific and stupid, obviously... but I think it's important to consider our evolution when analyzing behavior.

Just me :)

Bonobos also engage in fights, kill thier children and were largely studied in captivity...just saying.

Well, speaking about species as a whole, obviously. :)

And as for fighting and killing children, this is a pretty common thing among primates as a whole as well. Humans included.
 
Back
Top