But if chimpanzees are our closest relative, that should argue that women want sex with more partners, not fewer. The nature shows on them that I’ve seen all portray their sex lives as being very much like a Restoration Farce.
You blew it up!
You bastards!
God damn you to hell, you blew it up!
Morris worked on apes and edited an anthology of simian behavior before he wrote the Naked Ape and its many sequels. You can clearly see where his insopiration comes from, and I think that he’s right about many of his speculations (especially the “breasts as buttock-mimic” thing, which I’ve defended on this Board many times). But I agree that he often speculates way over the edge, and he ought to have given some indication of how speciulative his statements are. I’m also anoyed at the way many of his books are thoroughly without footnotes or references, so you can’t se where he dredged up an idea from, or what corroborating evfidence there is. I’m particularly annoyed by some statements he made in his book Dogwatching about human and dog behavior that he categorically states is no longer believed to be correct. H doesn’t tell you why or who decided this, and it’s only from my own reading that I know who suggested the idea he’s trying to denigrate. I’d prefer some argument and references, rather than a declaration by Desmond Morris.
This is a common misconception. A male fish may find it advantageous to dump as many seed around as possible, but humans aren’t fish. Because of the massive amounts of pre-natal and post-natal care needed to produce primate offspring, it makes sense for the males to stick around longer and help out a female while she is pregnant and after she has given birth. What’s more, in humans, ovulation is hidden so a man can’t increase his reproductive success simply be sleeping with as many females as possible. Among some primates (and in some human cultures) the females will sleep with as many males as possible during the time when she can become pregnant or shortly after she suspects that she has become pregnant. In some cultures, this is taken to the extent where they believe that babies are not born through one act of semen meeting the egg, but that the male needs to constantly feed the woman’s baby with sperm during her pregnancy. The reason that females would do this is because all the males they sleep with will think that they could be the father of the offspring and provide shelter, food, water to the pregnant mother and help take care of her children after they are born. In primate societies where infancide is practiced (humans being one) this can be the matter of life or death for the child.
And before anyone thinks that I am arguing that males and females have the same sexual wants and needs, I’m not, they are very different. They have different reproductive strategies and to argue otherwise would be incredibly foolish. I am just arguing against the idea that it is advantageous for males to be horny sluts banging everything in sight while not sticking around after copulation and that females are all prim and proper, do not want sex, nor cheat on their male partners. Bonobo females want to have sex just as much as, if not more so, than their male partners and I see no reason why it can’t be the same for humans.
: snerk :
Yes, primate babies take an enormous investment of parental care. Except most male primate provide almost none of that investment.
I agree with the idea that it’s ridiculous to imagine that primate females are prim and proper and don’t want sex and don’t cheat on their male partners. We know that they do cheat, they do mate with multiple males, they compete for males, lots of other behavior that wouldn’t be shown in 1950’s television.
However, it certainly seems to me to be true that male primates really are horny sluts banging everything in sight while not sticking around after copulation.
The “babies need care, therefore the males are obligated to provide care” fall apart when we look at just about every mammal species. Certainly solitary mammals have no male parental care. Papa bear mates with Mama bear, and Mama bear raises the cubs by herself. Papa wolverine mates with Mama wolverine, and heads for the hills, and Mama raises the kids all by herself.
Now, things get a bit more complicated in social mammals. The mere presence of males in a herd can make the herd safer, if the males scare off predators. And things get more complicated in very social animals. Male wolves bring food for the cubs. Male chimps sometimes provide meat for females and young. But it seems that the vast majority of parental care is provided by the females in almost all mammal species. So human males are an exception to the mammal pattern, where human males provide a substantial (greater than, say, 10%) fraction of the parental care.
First of all, one cannot compare all of mammals with primates and get an adequate view of human sexual behaviors. It is best to compare only the Apes and at most, the scope can be widened to primates in general. Let’s look at our closest relatives and see what we find.
Gibbons are in the same Super Family as us (Hominoidea) and practice monogamy. They have a nuclear social structure and the male provides for the female.
Orangutans are also in the same Super Family as us and they are the closest to the situation you imagine humans are in. Orangutans are most solitary and males do not help raise offspring. Because males are out of the picture, females only give birth once every 8 years which is longest birth interval of any mammal. In fact, it is thought that Orangutans will become extinct because of their solitary habits. Rape is a technique used by non-dominant male orangutans to sire offspring, but unlike in human rape, the male orangutans never deliberately injure the female and this is only practiced by males who would not have sexual access to females otherwise.
Next, Gorillas who are in the same family as us (hominidae). They have a vastly different diet than us, however, being mostly folivores. Gorillas live in one male/multi-female group. The male is assured off his offspring (whenever a new gorilla takes over a group of females, he kills all the infants) so he is mostly concerned with fighting off males. Even if the Gorilla were extinct, we’d know that they’d live in this type of community based on the size difference between males and females. Male Orangutan and Gorillas are twice the size of their female counterparts. On the other hand, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans exhibit less sexual dimorphism.
Chimps live in multi-male/multi-female groups. Although the dominant males try to control female sexuality, the females will still sneak off and mate with males of their choice during estrus. The dominant male gets first and last pick, but he allows his friends and political allies to mate with females as well. Females will often trade sex for food from males. Males and females will develop friendships and political alliances and do not hesitate to give food to their friends when asked. Although mostly males hunt, the food is shared with females, especially females who are sexually receptive. Dominant male chimps may kill an infant that is not their own, so it is advantageous for a female to sleep with the dominant chimp at least once during her estrus to ensure that her offspring are not killed by him. Males will work to protect, feed, and watch the babies. Of course, they don’t put the same effort into it that females do, but they stick around after sex to help feed the mother and raise the offspring.
In bonobo society, the females are the horny ones. Murder has never been observed in bonobo society nor a fight serious enough to cause the death of a bonobo. Aggression is allayed through sex, which the females are almost always willing to engage in. What’s more, females avoid the male aggression found in chimps by having sex with each other. Because the females have sex with each other a lot, they form close bonds and work together to defend against male aggressive. This can be demonstrated in human societies as well (‘cept for the lesbian part) In societies where females are cut off from each other and forced to move into the male’s family (Yanomamo), rates of aggression towards females are much higher than in human societies where the females form relationships and alliances with each other (Aka – who have the ‘best fathers’ interestingly enough). Obviously, female bonobos have sex with all the members of the tribe, so the males will look after and provide for offspring.
As we can see, in our closest relatives - chimps and bonobos, there are plenty of reasons for females to be just as sexual, if not more so, than males.
What’s more, when we look at humans, all societies had muti-female/multi-male groups. I’ve never come across a single human society where the males weren’t living with the females and helping to provide for their offspring. If you can present a society where this wasn’t the case, I’d love to see it.
Ahem.
A useful text on this weighty issue.
Is this an opinion or are have you read something to the contrary? I don’t think things should be dumped willy-nilly on the monkeys but instincts, IMHO, will take more than 2000 years of Christian shoehorning to eradicate.
Heck, I would assume that if the 2000 years of Christian teachings were that influential we wouldn’t be yelling in traffic.
This isn’t getting nearly enough love. It’s hilarious.
You’ve apparently never been to Sisters on a Saturday night.
I have the misfortune of mostly falling for straight girls. ><
I can’t even tell you how much this gets on my nerves. The other day I’m pretty sure someone was trying to say that women have long hair because of evolution.
Oops, I guess I got the idea for that post from the very next sentence in the OP. I don’t really see how reading is going to get me pregnant though so it’s only natural.
Deep down I’ve always know that I really don’t wear lipstick just to make my mouth look like a chimp’s ass.
Well, in general zoology AND intro to psychology (both only low level classes sure), both teachers went into the differences between biological instincts and reflexes, and showed that humans had no known true instincts- as science defines instinct. I tend to believe what my teachers tell me, though, so no disrespect meant for your theory.
I just finished reading The Blank Slate, a book that argues very persuasively that this theory, having dominated biology and psychology for decades, is grossly incorrect, supported more by political hopes than by empirical evidence.
For the best example of an instinct, look to human language acquisition, something that no other creature can do, but that all humans do effortlessly, during a certain age range and through predictable processes. Those ain’t reflexes: they’re instincts.
There are almost certainly a lot of other instincts in humans as well.
Daniel
After I posted I wondered if my teachers views on the subject were somehow motivated by some sort of quasi-political view of some sort.
The language aquisition idea definately looks to be instinctive in all areas, but they would argue that since it disapears later in life for the majority of humans, that it isn’t true instinct. Now that I really think about it, some of the justifications for why something wasn’t a true instinct was a bit convoluted.
Both teachers even went so far as to try to separate the defintions for hard-wired and instinctive (and reflexive). They would argue that the language center of the brain is a hardwired feature of the brain, and that damage or something would hinder that. The examples were extreme cases of instincts, migratory patterns, the goose and the egg example, robin’s nest building, etc. Interestingly, my zoology teacher never suggested that such instinctive behaviors could be “forgotten” if the birds had some brain damage.
I never did really like believing teachers just because they were teachers. 
Thank you. i held a rose back for myself, just in case.