Why we f*ck

Post image for Why we f*ck

A professional thinker named Thomas Hobbes got it into our heads for an embarrassingly long time that our ancestors were pitiful, lonely, mean people.

Three and a half centuries later Hobbes is still revered for his smarts, even though he’ll always be most famous for that unfortunate soundbyte in which he described the life of prehistoric man as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

Today few serious scientists are waving the “brutish and short” flag. Although the image of the paranoid, dumb, violent, solitary caveman persists in pop culture (and sometimes in our early blog posts) there’s little evidence to support it.

We now know human beings have always been highly social creatures, and that that has been our species’ defining strength. We know humans were nomadic for nearly all of their existence, roaming in groups of between 50 and 150 individuals. Rather than stressed, violent and solitary, they were probably most often calm, peaceful and intensely social.

Moving away from Hobbes’ thuggish caveman is one of those fabled “paradigm shifts” that happen sometimes in science, and which turn everything upside-down for a few decades (or centuries if there are churches involved,) until we’re mostly on the same page again — think Copernicus and his wild “the earth isn’t the center of the universe” idea.

As an interesting side-effect of rethinking what human quality of life was like in prehistory, it’s becoming clear that for all but the most recent sliver of human existence, human beings were not monogamous. Adults apparently didn’t pair off into exclusive couples like all of our storybooks tell us. They didn’t confine themselves to having children with only a single partner, as most people do (or try to do, or think they are supposed to try to do) today. 

Our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos, are both highly “promiscuous” by the standards of today’s mainstream human society. Evolutionary psychologist and author Christopher Ryan, from his book Sex At Dawn:

If you spend time with the primates closest to human beings, you’ll see female chimps having intercourse dozens of times per day, with most or all of the willing males, and rampant bonobo group sex that leaves everyone relaxed and maintains intricate social networks.

Ryan has complied a mountain of evidence that makes it hard to find compelling reasons to continue to maintain that we are biologically geared for monogamy. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense. The only ape that demonstrates clearly monogamous behavior is the gibbon, a highly anti-social creature that lives in small nuclear families, estranged from other gibbons by their enormous territories. They have infrequent sex and do not appear to do it for fun.

Hobbes’s dismal vision of our ancestors has been famously debunked by all camps in the anthropology world, even if they have fiercely different opinions about other things. We know they probably didn’t live in highly competitive, scarcity-driven environments, and that they had more leisure time than we do.

And we know they had lots of hot sex. Probably more than you. They were definitely not the prudes that came about in recent centuries, bringing along chastity belts, religious meddling, and a shaming attitude towards sex.

Why did we have so much sex?

First of all, we still do. We just have more a lot more hangups about it. And it should surprise no one that the primary reason we do it is not procreation. We do it because it feels good physically and emotionally. More specifically, it allows us to share something super-intimate with another human being. Most of the time we are definitely, expressly not trying to make a child.

Out of all your sexual experiences, how often were you doing it simply because you wanted to make a baby? The vast majority of people use birth control. We try to minimize baby-making but we’re still highly interested in sex, and so for humans sex obviously serves another extremely compelling purpose.

That purpose is to bring us closer, to cement social bonds. Being big-brained and relatively weak-bodied — an 80-pound baboon can tear a 200-pound man to shreds — what kept humans alive for hundreds of thousands of years was that our interpersonal bonds were so tight.

What other species grieves so helplessly for so long when they lose a relative or companion? What other species requires a decade or two of constant attention in order to raise a child to be a healthy, independent individual? What other creature can lose track of itself completely by gazing into in the eyes of a close companion?

We bond intensely, perhaps like no other creature ever has. And sex, especially face-to-face, can create great peaks of intimate bonding. We lose our pretensions. In a hyper-intimate way we bare ourselves to another, our outer and inner selves at the same time.

Before “mine” and “yours”

Think about what it would be like to live your whole life in a social group of about a hundred people. You’d get to know everyone rather quickly, and would develop relationships with them over decades. Dissenters and troublemakers would be reformed quickly or shunned — jealous and possessive types would be too great a liability for the whole group.

Human beings have never been able to survive on their own. Even today the greatest human fear is being ostracized or abandoned, because for hundreds of thousands of years, it meant death. In the civilized world, where there’s always another job, always another circle of friends out there, rejection doesn’t mean death, but emotionally it remains a devastating experience for most of us.

Most notably, there would be no notion of private property, of “mine” versus “yours.” This can be observed in many of today’s remaining hunter-gatherer tribes, where hiding or hoarding anything is viewed as a glaring offense to the whole community.

Possessiveness would not be tolerated or even understood, and therefore the idea of sexual exclusivity would be just as absurd and offensive to the others as hoarding food. Clearly it is normal and healthy for human beings to be attracted to multiple people, and our ancestors wouldn’t have found many reasons to restrict their intimate activities to one mate.

Females each mating with multiple males means that no male could quite be sure which child was his genetically. There were no paternity tests, and everyone would be so closely related that there wouldn’t be too many giveaways in the child’s features, such as distinct hair color or eye color.

Think about what that means for a moment: it’s likely that for most of human existence, it was not normal for a man to know which kids were his.

For the survival of the group, this was a good thing. First of all, it meant that males wouldn’t kill off the children sired by other males (as some species do). But most importantly, it meant that every adult felt a responsibility to care for every child in the group. The females would breastfeed the children of other women, and no man would have any reason to view one child as “his” and another as “not his.” All children were vulnerable, all were in need of food and protection and love, and the survival of the group depended on the survival of children, no matter who fathered them. Paternal uncertainty, as biologists call it, kept hunter-gatherer groups well-bonded and more liable to survive than they would be if they were fragmented into nuclear families who had clear preferences about who ought to get most of the help.

So the result of a sexual culture that modern people might call “promiscuous” was that the whole group was one giant family, with a conspicuous lack of alienation, possessiveness and competition, compared to how we interact with each other today.

Why everything changed

Before our eyes, social norms are changing. Most people don’t gasp and whisper when they see interracial couples anymore. The US president has officially endorsed gay marriage. Hotels no longer insist that you be married to rent a hotel room with a member of the opposite sex. Normal changes, and it can change fast.

Monogamy is still accepted by most to be the “way things are” among human beings, as a general rule. Certainly it’s prescribed non-negotiably in the Bible and other religious texts. But human relationships reach back far longer than that.

About ten thousand years ago, people figured out how to stay put. Instead of roaming the country, foraging for food, they began to grow it themselves, in the same place year after year. This had several immediate, world-changing effects.

For the first time, people could stay in one place. Food could be stored and accumulated. Settlements became permanent. The population boomed, and people began to live closer together. Currencies were implemented. Social institutions formed: churches, laws, militaries.

For the first time, wealth could be hoarded. One person could amass many times the resources of another. There had never been a way for one person to become vastly more powerful than other person before, because nomad groups could only carry what they needed, and would seek newer pastures when resources dwindled. Excess was pointless.

But now, everyone saw that there was no limit to accumulation, and the more they accumulated, the more secure they were. So nobody ever felt like they quite had enough — it was always desirable to have more. Combine this to the skyrocketing population, and fierce competition for resources became the new norm.

This had to have completely changed the social dynamics between human beings, on all scales. Human existence quickly shifted from an environment of abundance to an environment of scarcity. Great imbalances of power and privilege began, whereas they were impossible before, and they have continued to widen for the last ten thousand years.

What does this have to do with sex?

The greatest change agriculture made was that particular people became tied to particular areas of land. The notion of ownership had become became crucial for the first time. If an individual wanted to survive, rather than contribute to a cohesive, self-contained group, he had to secure the right to work a particular area of land, probably in spite of the competing interests of others. He had to participate as a small part of a large, impersonal economy. His life depended on his ability to do that.

Much like today, when a landowner died others wanted the land, and the issue of who had legal claim to it had to be settled. The most intuitive arrangement was for a landowner’s offspring to inherit it.

So for the first time ever, it became absolutely necessary for a man to know that his children were his. In the age before birth control and paternity tests, there was only one way for a man to be certain:

He had to make 100 percent sure that his woman never, ever had sex with anyone else.

And so men came to control land by controlling women’s sexuality, and the new “normal” sculpted by this economic trend is still the primary model for us today: sexual monogamy. To secure themselves economically, men demanded virgins and had zero tolerance for any hint of non-monogamy. Fidelity was enforced by vicious social contracts including religious dictates and cultural beliefs, for which women were humiliated, stoned or worse for even expressing the desire to bed with another man.

This was the beginning of a culture of sexual inequality and repression that we are still, sadly, used to. Even in progressive societies, women who want to have many sexual partners are often regarded as sluts, by both sexes. Men don’t face the same scrutiny.

For centuries it was debated — among scholar-class men, of course — whether women derived any pleasure from sex at all. The academic consensus was that sex was a drive that pertained only to males, and was merely accomodated by married females so that they could have the only thing the women truly desired: children.

So monogamy appears to be a cultural phenomenon that has its origins in economics of all places. There isn’t necessarily anything instrinsically wrong with it, but looking at the divorce rates one can’t help but wonder whether it’s a round hole, while humans — biologically at least — carry square pegs.

It’s well known that in North America, most marriages end in divorce rather than death, and most marriages include sexual infidelity. Sexless marriages are common, if not commonly talked about.

We’re still recovering from long-standing, asinine cultural pressures that tell us we can’t have too many sexual partners, can’t be gay, can’t be single parents, can’t have group sex without becoming a weirdo or a hippie, can’t have two partners at once without being a cheat, and can’t decide not to have children without being a self-absorbed hedonist.

Thankfully Kinsey’s famous studies, released following the war, revealed to the world what it both feared and knew all along: that everybody was doing everything the whole time, they just hid it from view. People were having oral sex, anal sex, extramarital sex, group sex, sex with machinery, sex with their own hands and fingers, gay sex, dress-up sex, S&M sex, and sometimes, no sex at all.

The variety and volume of sexual tastes and practices were enormous in reality, but publicly everyone presented the same front: modest, God-fearing monogamous relationships.

Where normal comes from

The day we’re born, each of us opens our eyes and begins to build a world that seems “normal” to us. It is built from scratch, experience by experience, and what we build depends on the die roll of where we’re born and when. So what we come to regard as “the way things are” may only be the way things have been for a few centuries, or even a few decades, and only in our own locale.

We have a tendency to project our own “normal” backwards and forwards across time and across millions of other people’s lives, making a lot of people wrong in the process. The irony is that we refer to these relatively new practices and social rules — of which monogamy is only one — as “traditions,” and that any deviation from them is a betrayal of what’s natural. Ninety-nine percent of human existence occured before the “traditional” ways even began.

I know some people reading this have no idea where I’m going with this or why I’m picking on monogamy, but I know a lot of people out there are nodding their heads. There might be a very good reason why it’s been so damn hard to make things work the “traditional” way. What’s traditional in your culture might clash very strongly with your biological and emotional makeup.

I’ve been in relationships where I was expected never to audibly acknowledge that I find other women attractive. It was somehow wrong, offensive to my partner, to disclose this truth. Yet it’s the most basic and obvious truth of human sexuality — that we all feel desires for more than one person throughout our lives. Still, somehow, the normal perspective is that the right thing to do is to hide it from the person we are supposed to love most.

Think of how many people have suffered the most miserable ache in the heart, just because they did not accept that basic reality. If that’s normal, you may find it’s a good reason not to be normal.

***

Photos by sinabeet and GulinKopec

Learn to live in the present

Everyday mindfulness has transformed my life, and has for countless others. You can use it to reduce stress, deal calmly with trouble, and experience joy and peace throughout each day. Making it a habit is easier than you probably think. Learn how.


{ 264 Comments }

Karese Warfield September 23, 2013 at 11:27 pm

As the author pointed out, there is little biological purpose for monogamy I suppose, however it serves a number of valid cultural purposes which enable our species to survive… If you’re aiming to challenge a cultural norm, approaching with a clear bias is rather ridiculous too. Both positions ought to be thoroughly investigated including validation wherever necessary along with criticism to gander my respect academically speaking. A superior (i.e. talking down to supporters of the other POV) presentation of your point of view reduces the number of individuals willing to listen not to mention the fact that is just distasteful & rude.

Deborah Pease- Bell October 9, 2013 at 7:26 am

Even the Bible instructs us to f*ck alot stopping only long enough to pray. God is very cool!

Rob October 9, 2013 at 9:20 am

Well there sure is a lot of talk on multiplying and begatting and stuff. But 2 things to remember: It was a man’s world in the Bible. The men were able to fling it about a bit, but not the women. Second point; as far as the Bible is concerned, the men paid dearly for flinging it around, just look at the life of Jacob, or Abraham, or David, who all had more than the one standard wife at any given time. I’m certain, by looking at their lives, that given a second chance, they’d choose a monogamous lifestyle any day of the week….maybe even celibacy. Oh no, they couldn’t do that…God told them they HAD to go out and multiply.

Jenny May Forsyth October 30, 2013 at 9:11 am

Hi David,

I love reading your blog – I especially like this article and have quoted it in a blog post of mine: here t’is… http://salonducybermuse.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/the-rules-of-engagement/

Comments are welcome!

Namaste, Jenny

Paul B. November 6, 2013 at 10:02 am

An interesting read. I love Anthropology….it’s one of those “it never gets boring” -kinda things for me. But what does get boring, though, are people who get stuck in “that other country does it right”, “that other tribe does it right”, “that other state does it right”, “those people used to do it right” –mode and “we suck so-badly-today-how-can-we-possibly-live-with-ourselves?”—-is the only possible outcome that can bubble up from that. Admittedly, nearly each and every construct that comprises ANY CIVILIZATION can be be pasteurized down to the role economics played in creating that construct……I’ll concede that. For a long time, in Western culture, monogamy “made sense” (on many levels, at least). Monogamy has always felt very natural to me. I did copy one little bit below:

“This was the beginning of a culture of sexual inequality and repression that we are still, sadly, used to. Even in progressive societies, women who want to have many sexual partners are often regarded as sluts, by both sexes. Men don’t face the same scrutiny.”

You’re right on some levels, but not on all. Men can AND OFTEN DO face a great deal of disdain by certain members of society for being “sluts”. They might not be reviled as openly as some women have had to suffer through, but many men dont get off scott free.

Digitalasylum November 13, 2013 at 5:25 am

I really enjoy your rantings and views on Raptitude, but on something like this, when you are dealing with scientific matters (i.e why we procreate, and specifically the mating rituals and practices of our ancestors) I would like citations of research, scientific data, or at least a statement saying how you came to the given conclusions. (even if it just states that this is your own hypothesis, based merely on your opinion)

Digitalasylum November 13, 2013 at 5:25 am

I really enjoy your rantings and views on Raptitude, but on something like this, when you are dealing with scientific matters (i.e why we procreate, and specifically the mating rituals and practices of our ancestors) I would like citations of research, scientific data, or at least a statement saying how you came to the given conclusions. (even if it just states that this is your own hypothesis, based merely on your opinion)

Digitalasylum November 13, 2013 at 5:29 am

I apologize for the multiple postings, it was accidental.

Aurolyn Luykx December 2, 2013 at 7:13 pm

I too loved “Sex at Dawn” — and even taught it to my students — until I read Ann Saxon’s rebuttal, “Sex at Dusk”, which is as rigorous as it is readable. She tears apart Ryan and Jetha’s shoddy scholarship by showing how much of it misleading, taken out of context, or just plain wrong. Read it and you’ll quickly see how R & J just don’t really get how natural selection works — some of their whoppers are so obvious (after Saxon points them out) that I can’t believe that I fell for them, being a reasonably scientifically literate person.

Ramon Soto December 8, 2013 at 11:02 am

5. Everyone likes somebody who gets to the point quickly. < this is number 5 out of 88 Important truths you've learned about life….right? So with that said, I'll get to the point right away by saying that the reason we f*ck is because is part of been human being, simple and because is sooooo f*cking good!! ;-)

Jade December 23, 2013 at 8:42 am

This article is very interesting and it would be even better with some references.

Tom December 23, 2013 at 9:53 am

Great article.

This all seems, and has done for some time, pretty blatant to me. But I have real difficulty explaining this to people.

Adriana February 3, 2014 at 12:01 pm

The only reason I find convenient to be monogamous today is due to STD’s…

Jen February 22, 2014 at 11:33 am

Very interesting read. When I first started reading it I had no idea that it would touch upon something so personal to me. I have a very difficult time embracing monogamy. It is so hard for me to understand the restricting of relationships…as though we can choose the attraction or the emotions that we feel for someone. Sure I can ‘choose’ to restrict relationships…feelings…connections…even my sexual orientation. But that does not feel normal to me. It hurts my soul. It makes me sad to know that I cannot love and care for someone, that I cannot express that love or attraction because society would frown upon it.

I do understand why people choose to be monogamous. It is a societal norm and it helps people avoid uncomfortable emotions…it limits jealousy, it can lower insecurities, it avoids the anxiety of contracting an STD, it calms the fear of heartbreak. But I also think that it can increase dishonesty, limit open communication and ultimately can backfire when people do not understand how to live in a world where love and attraction is not something we can control. It can breed guilt and it can distroy the relationships its suppose to be protecting.

Ashley April 12, 2014 at 6:02 pm

I agree with what you’re saying. I think “true love” (whatever that means) is being with someone because you choose to be together, not because you feel like you have to, and certainly not because some BS legal contract says you must. Don’t cling. Don’t be selfish. Don’t hold people back from experiencing whatever it is they want to experience.

I understand all of that.

BUT.

Personally, I could never be in an open relationship. I really wish I could. I think in a lot of ways it’s the most “evolved” way to be.

But even though I rationally understand all of this, and even though I know she and I will be attracted to other people, it would freakin’ kill me if she was getting it on with somebody else. It would absolutely break my heart. But if that’s what she wanted, I’d tell her to go ahead and do it, just don’t expect me to be there when she comes back.

So even though I 100% agree with what this article insinuates, I still could never be in an open relationship. Interesting read.

Calvin Klein men underwear sale May 2, 2014 at 2:07 am

I simply could not leave your website prior to suggesting that I actually enjoyed the standard info a person supply on your visitors?
Is going to be again often to investigate cross-check
new posts

Jeff June 24, 2014 at 6:36 pm

I’m fascinated by this conversation, and I think it comes from a slightly “counter” culture perspective. As a gay man living in Los Angeles, the idea of “monogamy” is fluid. My partner and I have agreed that we don’t like the idea of the other being with someone else unless we are both present. This means 3somes, groups, all kinds of play are ok as long as both of us are there to enjoy it. We share intimacy, love and respect between each other, and watching him with someone else just makes him all that sexier. But what is interesting is that he and I are considered tame by our other friends. Many of them in fully open relationships. We do have a rule, though, that if something happens, if one of us sleeps with someone by ourselves, we don’t demonize it. It’s not the end of the world. Life is long. We trust each other and love each other. I often wonder, as gay men, we’ve been allowed a chance to self-define these things for ourselves. My good friend is in a triad with two other guys. Taking a third lover is not that outrageous. Having fun with each other, exploring each other’s sexuality, and realizing that we are sexual beings with vast desires, is part of the fun of being in a relationship. Just some thoughts. I can’t imagine being told I can never look at or touch another man again. Just this one. I’m grateful to be part of a relationship and a community that allows me to be who I am and to express my sexuality, while still knowing that the person I choose to love is my soul mate and that we believe in romance and love and all of that stuff as well!

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 12 Trackbacks }


Raptitude is an independent blog by . Some links on this page may be affiliate links, which means I might earn a commission if you buy certain things I link to. In such cases the cost to the visitor remains the same.