It seems to me that since sex doesn’t invariably lead to procreation any more, we have a lot of mumbo jumbo about “emotional commitment” and such. Why is sex supposed to be for fun when you are young and single, but then when you get married it is supposed to take on some sacred, personal significance such that you don’t do it with anyone else?
For most of recorded history, female marital fidelity was more important than male for the simple reason that we always know who a baby’s mother is, but until recently had no way of being sure of the identity of the father. Since most men were repulsed by the idea of spending their resources on (and even leaving their property to) a cuckoo in the nest, a woman’s “purity” and “chastity” became the ancient world’s version of a credit rating; just as the latter helps to convince lenders that a modern person will pay back credit which has been extended him, so the “purity rating” helped to convince men with resources to invest them in a woman and her children. Originally, women without such a rating weren’t shunned or stigmatized; they simply weren’t considered good marital prospects. But as the centuries wore on such “purity” went from being a bonus to being a necessity, and the lack of it became a mark against a woman’s character (much as poor credit is becoming in our modern society). By the Victorian Era, the emphasis on chastity had spawned the notion that proper women were totally asexual, and female sexuality thus became a sign of either bad breeding or psychological/spiritual damage.
For all this time, male fidelity was never important to society as a whole because children’s maternity was never in question; it wasn’t until the appearance of that peculiar blend of pseudoscience, authoritarianism and Christian moralism we call “progressivism” that anyone other than Christian clergy and wronged women really gave a damn about male sexual behavior. Progressive thought held that if only “experts” educated in “scientific” methods of social engineering (including eugenics and control of the foods and other substances people ingested) could gain control of society, the human race could be “perfected” and we’d all live in a Utopia. First-wave feminists embraced this excuse to mind everyone else’s business, and one of the main goals of the resulting “social purity” movement was inflicting the societal expectation of female asexuality on men as well (because sex is dirty and nasty and a “superior” man wouldn’t want it). An avalanche of busybody laws followed, including the first widespread criminalization of sex work and alcohol, and if it weren’t for the Nazis giving eugenics a bad name it would no doubt still be just as popular as prohibitions against certain substances and sex acts (which are its ideological siblings).
Some rather ignorant people believe that these Victorian growths are things of the past, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Oh, they were tweaked somewhat in the middle decades of the 20th century, but the basic notion that members of the ruling class have the right to inflict violence upon everyone else “for their own good” is so useful a tool of control they’ll never let it go until it’s ripped from their cold, dead, severed hands. Alcohol prohibition was scaled back somewhat, but violent pogroms against users of other intoxicants were piled on top of it; the insistence that “official” sexual relations be licensed was replaced by sanction of unlicensed but noncommercial relations coupled with violent repression of commercial ones and the expectation that “immature” non-monogamous relations would eventually give way to serial monogamy based on romantic “love”. Furthermore, the party of the first part (hereinafter referred to as “the individual”) agrees that the party of the second part (hereinafter referred to as “society”) has the right to discourage “immature” pleasure-based relations by propaganda, shaming, pseudoscience about “sex addiction” and “negative secondary effects”, criminal prosecutions of sexual encounters that for one reason or another violate the expectations of one or more of the participants or uninvolved bystanders, or any other method society cares to introduce at a later time in perpetuam; the individual further agrees to internalize society’s discouragement of such “immature” relations by a date not to exceed that of the individual’s thirtieth birthday or date of his or her first legally-contracted marriage, whichever comes first.
I think you get the picture. Society hasn’t actually changed its old, repressive ways; in fact, it has actually expanded them and repackaged them in a different-shaped box with a colorful, “modern” wrapper in the hopes that you won’t notice that the same old oppression is still being rammed down your throat with a toilet plunger.
(Have a question of your own? Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)
I think the “monogamy expectation” is a product of human evolution. It’s too far spread in different cultures to be simply a product of society.
You did mention how female promiscuity affected men during the time when it was impossible to determine “fatherhood”.
But you didn’t mention how male promiscuity affects women.
Women (most women) have an expectation of monogamy because, when their man “cheats” – it’s usually accompanied by a draining of resources that she considers hers. Even if the trist is not commercial in nature – it’s still often accompanied by gifts of some sort, and an appropriation of the man’s time. If the “trist” produces a child – it’s even more of a drain on the resources she considers hers. There is also the possibility that she could LOSE her mate to another woman – a mate she’s invested significant amounts of time and effort to procure. I’m convinced that’s why a lot of women attempt to cut the balls off the dude when they divorce. There’s a lot of her time and effort that has now gone to waste and she has to begin to find a mate again from scratch – and she’s damned angry about it. The man is the obvious target of her scorn.
The second thing is this … I’ve found that most women are turned off to the idea of “fooling around” with married men. Why is this? I think that women have been gifted by evolution (just as men have) to pursue a permanent mate – and an attached male is a “dead end” … a waste of her time.
Human males use their status as providers to attract a mate (and if a man is good provider when he’s young – he’s usually still a good provider when he grows old). Human females use their sexuality and reproductive abilities to attract a mate (and that sexuality and reproductive ability is FINITE – it’s there for a couple, three decades – then it goes rapidly downhill).
So it IS in the female’s interest to hold her mate to a monogamous relationship.
This whole dynamic of “mating” … and how it all takes place and the incentive to hold it together – is a product of evolution, not society. Society can craft all sorts of rules and “expectations” around this … and it might appear that society is responsible for it, but it is a lot more complicated than that. There is an underlying dynamic that has been produced by evolution which, I believe, originates it.
What do I know though? Although the “monogamy expectation” is spread far and wide throughout most human cultures – it’s not present in all. However, in those that it’s not – it’s pretty controlled. Still – even that argues against my “evolution” theory on this.
Also – the “monogamy expectation” doesn’t just magically come into existence when we get married. It starts the moment we (male or female) find a mate that we think will be … “the one”. My nephew went through this exact thing when he simply took another girl to a movie. His “long-time” girlfriend … well, of a couple of years … went absolutely BALLISTIC over his “cheating”. And what ensued was a nightmare of woe so severe – you’d have thought this 18 year old girl had been married to him for 20 years!
So the author of the question is not entirely right when he assumes that sex is supposed to be “fun when we’re young”.
I’ve heard this theory before: the idea that monogamy exists because women want it to because that’s how we’re evolved. But anywhere from thirty to sixty percent of us cheat on our spouses. That’s a lot of people if we’re “biologically wired through evolution” for monogamy, don’t you think? Swans mate for life; they are wired for it. 0% of swans cheat on their spouses. Here’s the page I get the human statistics from: http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/stats-about-infidelity.html. Note their source links if you don’t trust it.
Now, note this little nugget: “Men are more likely to cheat than women. But, as women become more financially independent, women are starting to act more like men with respect to infidelity.” Ladies and gentlemen, I propose the theory that monogamy exists due to economics.
Until very recently, men were the wage earners in our society. All the capital a woman had was her ability to produce children. She trades that ability – and her loyalty – for food and shelter. The reason that no one gave a damn about men’s sexual behaviour until recently is because their economic status has not been linked to their sexual behaviour. But, things are changing, and I believe that the shadow side of female financial independence is a desire to control male sexual behaviour in return for their food and shelter. And when women are the inheritors of the property and the economic assets, and they are in some cultures, this is exactly what happens.
Another interesting point of note: a recent study suggested that the main factor that caused one woman to address another as a “slut” is . . . wait for it . . . a difference in economic status. Here’s my link for that: http://globalnews.ca/news/1373537/study-examines-why-girls-call-each-other-sluts-its-not-about-sex/
Culturally the shaming and sanctions against cheating are considerable, and becoming more so for men. So why do we continue to do it? The answer: we are not wired for monogamy. Or rather, some of us are but most of us aren’t. So what’s the solution? In a culture where a) women are gaining economic equality (though we don’t have it yet) and b) women can control their own fertility, perhaps culturally imposed monogamy is a dinosaur whose day has passed.
Maybe people should be more willing to negotiate the terms of their relationship, expecting no more than what they are willing to give (so in other words, if you want to have sex with other people, expect that your spouse will also, regardless of gender). I think lying to your spouse about your sexual behaviour is still inappropriate; but I think there are many agreements you can come to that don’t require that!
I agree that many vocal feminists seem determined to mind everybody else’s business. I find this discouraging, because I believe that sexual freedom is a feminist issue. The ability to control female sexuality and fertility through social shaming is a tool of social control, the end result of which continuously disadvantages women in economic fields. It is in our best interests to encourage free sexual expression for everybody.
” 0% of swans cheat on their spouses. ”
Ah yes, we’ve all seen those photos of two swans together, their necks forming a heart shape.
But, alas, swans, both pen and cob, do cheat given the opportunity. Their cygnets have been DNA tested, and quite often the apparent mate isn’t the father. I’m not sure if there is any species that doesn’t cheat.
I’ll take your word for it. 😀 But if anything, that would support my argument that there is no biological or evolutionary imperative towards monogamy, if even swans cheat.
Absolutely. It makes no genetic sense to breed exclusively with only one individual; no genome is perfect and varied offspring are more likely to avoid having two copies of a deadly recessive gene.
An explanation for cheating goes something like this; human infants are born very prematurely compared to many other species, and the infants need a lot of care and nurture for a long time. So, a woman will want a mate who will be loyal for a long time, someone who will be a good and reliable provider. But such a mate won’t necessarily have the best genes; so the woman will try to get better genes from elsewhere. (And men with the best genes may well not make the best mates.)
Makes a lot of sense biologically. Of course, ethically, it would be pretty bad behavior. The term “exploitation” comes to mind. But if you look around, many, if not most, people are rather strongly controlled by biological impulses and have no real large-scale intellectual control over their lives and actions.
In my book: No control implies no responsibility (unless control was deliberately rejected, but that is a special case).
This all seems to have started with the change to settled agriculture. Settled agriculture meant that you worked a certain bit of land, it became your property. As you wanted only your “legitimate” heirs to get your property, it meant that women had to be “controlled”, and this all formalised. This seems to be the origin of female monogamy, marriage and law.
There are still a few “primitive” tribes which may have a settlement, from which the men go hunting. Here, there is no real idea of “property”; rather more curiously, some such tribes have the idea that the more sperm there is, the healthier the developing child will be. So, women have sex with all the men in the “village”, and no child knows who his/her biological father is. And the kids run around all the men, for the men are all their fathers, without there being any child molestation.
Don’t forget the fact that human females are about the only species on the planet that I know of that mates “out of season”.
Which makes her “available” to her mate virtually 365 days a year.
I think this was an evolutionary development that helped them attract a single mate … and by being perpetually available to that mate, he becomes more emotionally attached and “strays” less.
I think that it simply made sex more effective as a social lubricant — a way to release tensions in the local band of foragers.
Bonobos, who about as close to us evolutionarily as chimpanzees, have a lot of sex, with almost anyone else in their band (including male-male, female-female, father-son, father-daughter … ). And they seem to do it to defuse friction or tensions that might otherwise result in violence.
As we humans developed more complex societies, we also developed ways of surviving in those complex societies. Language is very probably one of them. Religion may have been one, too (to keep freeloaders honest — He’ll know you loafed even if we didn’t see you!).
And year-around sex may have, too. Because another corollary of the “in season or out” feature is that the overwhelming majority of acts of intercourse between human males and females do *not* result in pregnancy.
Somewhere, I heard the ratio 1:1,000.
No doubt mating *began* as our species’s method of procreation. But that’s no longer it’s primary purpose, for humans. (Or bonobos)
I’m hesitant to theorize about human behavior based on the behavior of “bonobos”.
Though they are a lot like humans … they are a separate species and therefore …
Not human.
Society can only do “so much” to moderate the evolutionary response. No society, for instance, could “socialize” homosexuality into the majority of males. I’m not saying that society doesn’t have an impact – it certainly does. But it can’t remove the evolutionary tendency. Where society makes rules and customs consistent with the evolutionary tendency – there tends to be harmony. Less so when society goes against that tendency. In a way, I suppose that is a point for your argument here – since there is “less” harmony with the “monogamous expectation” – since so many men violate it routinely.
“I’ve found that most women are turned off to the idea of “fooling around” with married men.”
My personal experience indicates quite the opposite. When I was married, women were always coming on to me. Getting divorced stopped all that.
Bro … I get “approached” all the time by these women.
And yeah, some don’t care about your marital status … but I’ve had an equal number of them “turn-off” the second they found out I was married. I had a nurse on an aircraft carrier cuddling up to me for three days … then I casually mentioned my wife, and you should have seen her face. Like a coon dog that suddenly realized there wasn’t anything in the tree. I didn’t lead her on at all (though I am naturally “flirtative” I suppose – she was hot and all, and a fun gal but I never made a pass at her. But her face when she found out I was married was like … “I can’t believe you did this to me!”) She recovered quickly though – I think she was pretty used to being disappointed in her love life.
Now, are you talking about YOUNGER women? Because that becomes a different ballgame. They’re in their prime and have plenty of time to find a dude they’ll spend their life with. The younger GOOD LOOKING ones – the ones that know they’ll have no problem attracting a guy are especially like this (or so I’ve found from personal experience).
My father said exactly the same; once the wedding ring was on, interest from women increased.
When you’re unattached, women show their interest much more subtly and many men miss it. It’s generally just a “look” they give you … and you do the rest … they expect you to do the rest.
But when you’re married … they know the “look” isn’t going to be enough for you to override your attachment (nay – OATH) to another woman. They have to show their interest more overtly. And no guy can “miss it” when they do.
But the argument will never be a binary one … because not ALL women are turned off by married men. Some women out there DO pursue married men. I don’t know why. I would speculate that it’s probably related to the old saying … “all of the good ones are taken”.
Sooo … they opt to get a GOOD one by scalping him from the “taken” jar.
Be carefull not to confuse flirting with actual courtship. A lot of ladies, and guys, too, enjoy flirting. And in many cases they do NOT intend for it to lead to anything. I suspect a great many ladies flirt with married guys, and gay guys, because they know it’s less likely to result in any demands for actual sex or romantic attachment. They want to experience the fun of flirtation, but for one reason or another, they’re not ready for anything more serious.
The thesis of the book “Sex At Dawn” is, that this pattern is not a result of human nature, but is a result of human society … in fixed settlements.
Briefly, no other species among the Great Apes is monogamous, so why should we expect ours to be?
In addition, the human male anatomy shows a design feature that would only be needed if other human males had recently ejaculated into the woman whom this male wants to impregnate.*
*The penises of male gorillas, who live in an Alpha Male + Harem society, are short (when erect, about 2″) and cylindrical, with no distinctive glans. The penises of male humans, bonobos, and chimpanzees, who do not live in societies like gorilla society, are much longer and *do* have a distinctive glans that works effectively to pump other males’ ejactulate *out of* the female they are trying to impregnate.
In addition, the “monogamous expectation” is only found in human societies that have lived in fixed settlements for thousands of years.
It is less likely to be found in human societies that have lived in such societies for only a few hundred years.
And it is never found in the few remaining human societies that are still “immediate-return foragers:” foragers who eat what they hunt and what they gather within a day or two of obtaining it.
The authors of “Sex At Dawn” do not speculate about the history of the rise of the “monogamy expectation.” My own conjecture is this:
As human groups began to accumulate long-term assets — herds and flocks, or valuable real estate (for example, a stretch of river with good fishing, or with good farmland) — they probably began to need to defend those assets from other human groups. Human groups probably began to fight human groups. Men who showed skill in battle probably created a hierarchical society, with themselves at the top.*
*Bands of immediate-return foragers are well-known to be “ferociously egalitarian.” They will jump, verbally, on anyone who begins to puff himself up and thinks he is superior in any way — through sarcasm, verbal put-downs, and so forth. That is, that’s the least they will do to such a member of the band.
Once this hierarchical society was established, the men at the top probably began to demand the best and the most of all valuables. The best and most of the food; the best and most of the “things”; and the best and and most … of the women. In other words, the polygamy (polygyny) that we all remember among the wealthiest of the wealthy in the Middle East and in India.
The women probably could not defend their freedom from these men who were skilled in battle with other battle-skilled men; and the lower-status men probably could not either: their lower status probably reflected their lower skills in battle.
Once the top-level men had accumulated their wealth, one specific problem probably emerged. Men can live with a shortage of food. Men can live with a shortage of “things.” But when there is a shortage of women … it can get mighty ugly, mighty fast.
So. I speculate that the “monogamy expectation” arose as a hard-fought toughly-negotiated compromise among the men.
*So long as* the top men would agree to moderate their accumulation of women, *so long as* the lower-level men would be able to feel that they would have a chance at having even only *one* woman … then (I speculate) the lower-level men would agree not to unite, revolt, and overwhelm the top men.
Of course, this probably did create a “shortage” of female “time and attention” among the lower-level men — at least, when compared to the halcyon days of their forager ancestors. And a society focused on “shortage” does get a little crazy.
But fixed-settlement societies were here to stay, and at least the “monogamous expectation” was better than the near-starvation arrangement that probably preceded it.
All speculation, of course. If things did proceed this way, the minutes of the meetings that met during that turbulence, those rebellions, and that compromise have not survived the thousands of years between then and now!
It just seems (to me) to explain the transition from the practices of our prehistoric forager societies to the societies we know from all of our written history and most of our legends.
(I do happen to think that some of the more generous elements in the Bible are throwbacks to that earlier era. But again that’s my speculation.)
I dunno man, the thought of me “pumping semen” from another man out of a woman with my penis is a bit of turn-off for me.
I would say most men would agree with my sentiments on that.
So I don’t know about this hypothesis.
There is nothing in the hypothesis that says the male would ever know that that is what his penis is doing. It’s the shape of the penis that causes to pumping to occur, and the male would have no conscious control or awareness of it. All that would be apparent to him would be the presence of semen on the shaft of his penis, and most likely he would assume it was his own.
Its is an insight from engineering, which some more modern MDs and Biologists do not regard with distaste anymore. It is very likely accurate as the explanation both fits the mechanics of things very well and no competing explanation comes even near. Also explains why there is so much “pumping” during sex. It literally is pumping, just in the other direction that people assume.
As to your disgust: Just ignore it. Sex is pretty disgusting if you look to close anyways.
Well said. We now have a culture that has completely internalized the sugar-coating and gift-wrapping on the same old repulsive behaviors.
Actually, I think the values dissonance is more due to younger generations not valuing marriage and virginity the same way that older generations do, and that in order to continue to justify the existence of marriage at all it was re branded as a “love and fidelity” commitment rather than an economic one.
Why is there a picture of a lady being attacked in the shower by a Dalek?
Read the last line.
I don’t think that we have a solid clue as to why we do what we do. It’s a mixture of all of these things, but seeing how we are juvenile, hairless (relatively speaking) apes, only out of the trees for a million years, give or take, we’re still making it up as we go along, IMO.
Re my Dalek comment.
I think this might be my fault. I should have allowed for the fact that a joke is always also a risk by it’s very nature.
Perhaps Daleks are not so well known Stateside as in England.
Perhaps it might have worked better to have made some reference to ‘DV not applying just to humans’.
At any rate, I remain an admirer of your writing (particularly enjoyed the story of the courtesan and small guy) and also your blog. I think there is an authorship career waiting in the wings should you care to pursue it!
I believe you have much support for your stand against authoritarian oppression and official legalised stupidity.
Never loose heart.
Kind regards and best wishes.
It’s true that Daleks are not as well known in the US as they are in Britain, but I’m very certain that Maggie knows what they are.
I know exactly what they are; I simply didn’t realize the comment was intended as a joke.
I thought it was funny. But I am European, and have known about Daleks for a long time. (Not a Dr. Who fan though, this show just does nothing for me…)
I saw Daleks for the first time in 1981, when I was not yet 15. But remember, I chose the picture to illustrate the last line, so of course I saw it as what I intended rather than the way anyone else might see it.
Not a problem, and together with the text, the picture is perfectly clear. The “Dalek” idea is still funny.