Humans are wired for promiscuity -- culture makes it 'cheating'

[Hypoxia]

I posted this in the Story Discussion forum but it's worth repeating here (more eyes, hey?)

How to Make Love Like a Caveman: Wait your turn.

If asked to imagine what prehistoric human sex was like, according to psychologist Christopher Ryan, most of us would conjure "the hackneyed image of the caveman, dragging a dazed woman by her hair with one hand, a club in the other..." Ryan says this image is mistaken in every detail. A much more likely picture of how it went down in prehistoric times was this: a caveman would quietly sit in the corner and watch another caveman have sex with a woman, patiently waiting his turn.

Apparently, prehistoric women were extraordinarily promiscuous, and like our primate ancestors, women are hard-wired to behave like chimps in the bedroom. In his book, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origin of Modern Sexuality, Ryan offers a biological explanation for why we find monogamy so difficult today. A male is interested in sex with one woman up until the point of orgasm, at which point he will immediately lose interest, fall asleep, or perhaps wonder off to find more action.

In other words, human males are in important ways sexually incompatible with human females, who are capable of multiple orgasms. So what is the evolutionary advantage of this? Take monogamy out of the equation, and the evolutionary logic becomes more evident. A woman can have multiple sexual partners. This may increase her chances of reproducing, and she needs to try it a lot to be successful. Compared to other animals, humans have an incredibly low rate of conception, based on the number of sexual acts we partake in. And so it is well that sex is so much fun for humans, because if that were not the case, we wouldn't have made it this far.

So just what does it mean to make love like a caveman? It means have a lot of sex, partaking in, as Ryan describes it, the "seven million years of primate promiscuity" that our ancestors so heartily embraced as a species. That's a lot of sex.

Civilization can be such a pain. But it gives LW readers something to whine about.

EDIT: Whoops, there's more:

What's the Significance?

According to Ryan, if we took an honest look at our dysfunctional sexual lives today, this is what we would find: we are all victims of a well-intentioned inquisition. American society has responded to this crisis by inventing a 'marital-industrial complex' of couples therapy, "pharmaceutical hard-ons," sex advice columnists, and "creepy father-daughter purity cults.” Viagra breaks sales records every year. Pornography worldwide is a $100 billion business. Ryan says we spend all of this money to compensate for a fundamental disconnect we have with our nature.

For instance, why is monogamy so difficult? According to Ryan, we are biologically programmed against it. It was not until the advent of agriculture that man developed a notion of private property, and had reason to feel jealous of a promiscuous mate. Culture invented monogamy, and with it marriage, cheating, and a sense of shame that surrounds our sexual selves. Ryan is anything but a home-wrecker. His book offers no prescriptions for curing our disconnect with nature. What he does recommend, however, is that we lose this sense of shame we have when we feel or act certain ways that contradict our culture, but which are in perfect harmony with our sexual nature.

 

[Nezhul]

Males are wired to fuck as many females as they can.

Females are wired to be fucked by the strongest and most powerful male around (but only one male, not the entire tribe).

If we were acting like we were "wired" - then 99% of males would be forever virgin, and 99% of females would be stuck at the harems of that 1% of males that has all the money.

 

[hylas_]

Females are wired to be fucked by the strongest and most powerful male around (but only one male, not the entire tribe).

^ is this based on evidence? Because I have the feeling that it's not true at all, but it's just a hunch, I haven't done any research.

 

[Nezhul]

^ is this based on evidence? Because I have the feeling that it's not true at all, but it's just a hunch, I haven't done any research.

This is based on the original tribal lifestyle of our species. No research. So maybe I'm wrong.
Call it a hunch.

 

[ChloeTzang]

This is based on the original tribal lifestyle of our species. No research. So maybe I'm wrong.
Call it a hunch.

Hmmmmm. If I was single I'd go do some hands on research.

 

[J_R_Ashunwhy]

Males are wired to fuck as many females as they can.

Females are wired to be fucked by the strongest and most powerful male around (but only one male, not the entire tribe).

If we were acting like we were "wired" - then 99% of males would be forever virgin, and 99% of females would be stuck at the harems of that 1% of males that has all the money.

Actually, recent studies have shown that current unmarried women seeking a mate to reproduce, are not seeking the strongest, most physically powerful mates, but that they are--on average--seeking more 'effeminate' and mentally supportive mates to either share in the child raising responsibilities, or to take over those responsibilities completely (stay-at-home dads). I think it was conducted by the New York University in 2010, 2011, something like that, if you would like to look into it further. Among unmarried women not looking to reproduce, that macho male--on average--was found to be more attractive, but the average number of mates was still greater than one.

 

[SimonDoom]

Two observations:

1. Whatever the truth or falsity of the promiscuous caveman/cavewoman theory, you have to allow for the fact that there's no essential truth that applies to all people. The range of sexual appetites, needs, desires among people is huge. This site is evidence of that. Any effort to determine that we are "essentially" this or that is flawed.

2. Thank goodness for civilization. Not just for all the obvious reasons, because it makes for better erotic stories. There's no erotic tension or interest in two horny cave people, unbounded by any scruples or societal limits, getting it on. But put two cave people in a suit and a dress and drop them into civilization, with all its limits, laws, morals, and neuroses, and you have a good erotic story.

 

[Jack99]

Lot of baloney in this thread.

Tribal men wanted their ladies to be monogamous so they knew they were the baby-daddy.
Tribal women wanted their men to be monogamous so they would support only them.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Dear everybody telling us what prehistoric human society was like: could y'all please indicate whether you're just talking about how you assume it was, or whether you're actually working off some kind of scientific evidence about how these societies actually worked?

 

[sr71plt]

Lot of baloney in this thread.

Tribal men wanted their ladies to be monogamous so they knew they were the baby-daddy.

I think that probably came later than "tribal"--when there was something other than the next meal accumulated to pass down to someone. I think "tribal" was probably more clan communal than that.

 

[Zodia195]

I think at the end of the day it really depends on the person. Me, myself, I am 100% monogamous and I want my mate to be the same (sing btw). That's just me. Certainly not going to judge others who aren't. One of my best friends is a pansexual and I have another friend who is asexual. Everyone is different.

 

[sr71plt]

Met anyone who's just old and tired?

 

[Hypoxia]

Dear everybody telling us what prehistoric human society was like: could y'all please indicate whether you're just talking about how you assume it was, or whether you're actually working off some kind of scientific evidence about how these societies actually worked?

There seems to be a database. Wikipedia sez:

According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies from around the world noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.
<snip>
Many societies that we consider monogamous in fact allow easy divorce. In many western countries divorce rates approach 50%. Those who remarry do so on average 3 times. Divorce and remarriage can thus result in "serial monogamy", i.e. multiple marriages but only one legal spouse at a time. This can be interpreted as a form of plural mating, as are those societies dominated by female-headed families in the Caribbean, Mauritius and Brazil where there is frequent rotation of unmarried partners. In all, these account for 16 to 24% of the "monogamous" category.
<snip>
The genetic evidence for the evolution of monogamy in humans is more complex but much easier to interpret. While female effective population size (the number of individuals successfully producing offspring thus contributing to the gene pool), as indicated by mitochondrial-DNA evidence, increased around the time of human (not hominid) expansion out of Africa about 80,000–100,000 years ago, male effective population size, as indicated by Y-chromosome evidence, did not increase until the advent of agriculture 18,000 years ago.

This accords with Ryan, quoted in my first post:

...why is monogamy so difficult? ...we are biologically programmed against it. It was not until the advent of agriculture that man developed a notion of private property, and had reason to feel jealous of a promiscuous mate. Culture invented monogamy, and with it marriage, cheating, and a sense of shame that surrounds our sexual selves.

Property seems to be the key. Who owns whom?

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Sex makes babies; child care becomes the predominant interest of the parents (especially females, I'd argue). Monogamy is simply the most stable form of child care; two parents committed to mutual care and not spending all their child care resources chasing other tail.

Other systems *can* work; in a tribe with close ties, child care can be distributed across the tribe and the biological parents can be freer. But not every culture seems to have been up for distributed childcare and monogamy has been popular (at least in theory) in a lot of the longer-running civilizations. Highly poly- societies just don't seem to do as well in terms of development and growth.

In other words there's wiring that encourages cheating, but after a few thousand years of civilization, wiring that embraces monogamy. Which you inherited and which you choose to cultivate is complicated by a lot of things, but insisting we're all wired to cheat seems just plain unlikely. It may just seem that way to the cheaters.

In the present day there are other factors. People are less willing to have offspring or at least lots of them, and technology makes it possible to avoid conception. Diseases are easier to tame, though AIDS threw a curveball in that area. And babies can be safely dumped into society's lap (you can drop a baby off at any hospital and leave). Overall, sex is becoming less risky, and less about babies because child care is becoming more distributed. So monogamy becomes less critical.

Economic pressures come into play, too; if you need two incomes to get by, cheating is riskier. If you're caught, you lose the other spouse's necessary income, and good luck attracting another spouse. Monogamy can be good for more than just the babies.

Bottom line, it's complicated and affected by many things. Simple summaries don't excite me.

 

[KimGordon67]

Can someone please explain to me where this 'wiring' is because mine appears to be faulty and is clearly in need of attention.

 

[KimGordon67]

Also, Ryan and Sex at Dawn is not really accepted as an authority on these matters, so I'd be careful taking that text as gospel.

 

[Handley_Page]

Hmmmmm. If I was single I'd go do some hands on research.

Spoken like a true 21st century western woman.

 

[hylas_]

Monogamy is simply the most stable form of child care;

(...)

Simple summaries don't excite me.

But out-of-nowhere, based-on-nothing statements do?

Back that shit up, yo!

 

[Hypoxia]

Monogamy is simply the most stable form of child care

Back that shit up, yo!

HitD will have a hard time convincing us that monogamy in USA, where 50% of marriages end in divorce, is particularly stable. Some of the breakups are due to infidelity, true. The stats I've seen say most are not. Some cultures (I'd cite France, Italy, Latin America, etc) may have high levels of nominal monogamous stability -- but it's understood that the partners are screwing around discretely, yet they remain together as a child-rearing unit. Tribal parenting is even more stable. If a blood parent dies or leaves, plenty of other moms-dads-aunties-uncles remain.

Studies of this undoubtedly abound. I haven't time to look them up right now. Maybe when I can get back online later.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Sex makes babies; child care becomes the predominant interest of the parents (especially females, I'd argue). Monogamy is simply the most stable form of child care; two parents committed to mutual care and not spending all their child care resources chasing other tail.

Monogamy is a form of marital relationship; it has childcare implications but it's not a childcare model in itself. Even in societies with a very strong expectation of monogamy it's common for childcare to be shared around beyond the parents. Aunts and uncles, step-parents, grandparents, older siblings, neighbours, friends, and paid childcare are all common options, and having that diversity of options provides robustness.

Currently my partner isn't working and her kids have left home, but we have several friends and relatives with young children. We do a fair bit of baby-sitting

Other systems *can* work; in a tribe with close ties, child care can be distributed across the tribe and the biological parents can be freer. But not every culture seems to have been up for distributed childcare

Really? I honestly can't think of any culture where childcare has been restricted to the biological parents.

Bottom line, it's complicated and affected by many things. Simple summaries don't excite me.

I do agree with that bit, though!

Can someone please explain to me where this 'wiring' is because mine appears to be faulty and is clearly in need of attention.

Mmm-hmm.

Obviously evolution has influenced how humans behave, but one of the things evolution gave us was an amazingly flexible brain that can adapt to new conditions that aren't part of our evolutionary background.

In evolutionary terms it's an eye-blink since humans started programming computers, driving cars, or flying rockets to the Moon. But somehow our "wiring" is capable of handling all of those things. So I don't give a lot of weight to the "cave-men didn't do it that way, ergo modern humans aren't wired for it" argument when applied to sociology.

 

[My I]

Humans are not "hardwired" for ANYTHING. Humans are adaptive and evolving. They make choices and that effects the rest of their lives.

People who say humans are "hardwired" for anything are only promoting their own agenda.

 

[lovecraft68]

Females are wired to be fucked by the strongest and most powerful male around (but only one male, not the entire tribe).

Do your knuckles drag when you walk?

 

[lovecraft68]

Humans are not "hardwired" for ANYTHING. Humans are adaptive and evolving. They make choices and that effects the rest of their lives.

People who say humans are "hardwired" for anything are only promoting their own agenda.

Perfectly stated.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Humans are not "hardwired" for ANYTHING. Humans are adaptive and evolving. They make choices and that effects the rest of their lives.

People who say humans are "hardwired" for anything are only promoting their own agenda.

Humans are complex little devices, and are hardwired for quite a bit. The wiring IS malleable to some degree - but it's not absolutely malleable and to say otherwise is disingenuous. If you really think otherwise, come up with a protocol to make gay people straight or pedophiles lose their obsession. People have tried both for years, with willing subjects; success rates are abysmal. Also, let me know how your cure for autism is coming.

Two arguments that simply do not work as an overarching absolute rule: 1) "I can't help X, I'm just wired that way, behaviour is predetermined". Sorry bud, free will exists and can do quite a bit, if not everything. And 2) "We're free to be who and what we want to be, if we just reject disbelief." Sorry bud, even brain plasticity has limits.

Of the two schools of thoughts above, I find the adherents of the second one to be more of the quacks and con-men. Maybe because there's more money to be made in telling someone that can fly if they just flap their arms a little harder. Oh, and buy this pixie dust too...

 

[HandsInTheDark]

But out-of-nowhere, based-on-nothing statements do?

Back that shit up, yo!

Sure. No one has more stake in the outcome of parenting than a mother; she is biologically required to spend nine difficult months just forming the baby, and then traditionally about 16-20 years caring for it. That is a HUGE investment in time and energy; and the motivation to see that investment go well is enormous. If you think otherwise, threaten a child with his mother nearby. It goes poorly with the higher mammals and very poorly with humans.

The father runs second. Anyone else is a distant third at best. Parents are simply going to care the most, because of how much of their lives have gone into the process of child-rearing.

People give different explanations for this. You can argue that parental love is a gift from God and is the by-design foundation of human survival and coexistance; some people do. Or you can argue that genetics and evolution has developed a kind of "selfishness" which makes success a matter of my genes triumphing over yours through increased offspring survival rates; this is the whole Selfish Gene idea. Bottom line, though, the family unit in one form or other is everywhere in human society and it's because it is what works best.

Yeah, you can imagine a Brave New World society in which the family unit is barely relevant, or more tribal arrangements where child care is more much distributed. Both those systems (in some form) have been tried out. I don't see evidence that they triumph in any dimension, do you?