evolution of "sex = love"

In not just a couple threads schraf and I have butted heads on the nature and importance of emotions to the sexual act.It has been her assertion that "pair bonding" is an important aspect of sex, and in fact is a product of evolution. Sex and "emotions of pair bonding" are linked in human behavior because of its evolutionary importance.To support this assertion she has provided links which show that chemicals are released during sex which can help in pair bonding. This I have never denied. Unfortunately, sex helping pair bonding, does not in any way indicate that pair bonding is a necessary part of sexual activity at all, much less that they are somehow linked in evolutionary development.My own stance is that the only "evolutionary" parts of sex are physical pleasure, and hormonal drives to have sex, both of which increase the chance of more offspring.Bonding may have been an important survival strategy for early humans and so many things they did together became aids to that bonding (their connection was reinforced). However sex in humans (even in bonding) was not "pair" oriented. There is no indication that humans mated for life (like pigeons and seahorses), and no indication that sex was used only for "bonding".To my mind, the best that can be said is that along with the rise of Judeo-Xto monotheism, there was a social evolution to tie sex and commitment. With guilt placed squarely on sex, and the only release given to those in relationships, it has become a social phenomenon that humans tend to confuse lust (pure sexual excitement) with love (bonding experience). What's more, this confusion also includes an idea that humans only bond in pairs, that monogamous bonding is the natural condition and that nonmonogamous bonding is "bad" or "unnatural".To support my assertions I have also presented evidence (and links). The following are a summary of facts that shraf, or anyone else that holds that "pairbonding" is evolutionarily attached to sexual activity, need to address:1) Studies on testicular size comparisons, indicate that human males have "evolved" to produce sperm in a non-monogamous environment.2) Sperm production itself appears keyed to the possibility that there are rival partners, increasing when potential sexual partners are away for a period of time.3) Before the rise of Judeo-Xto monotheism, there is no evidence that sex was limited to monogamous relationships at all. It is true that there is indication some peoples tended to "pair off", but not that this was the extent of their sexual life. Most cultures were polygamous, or enjoyed open sexual rites, celebrations, and entertainments.4) With the rise of worldwide spread of Judeo-Xtianity (and its values), polygamy and open sexual lifestyles remained until forced into submission. Interestingly enough it did not stop it completely even within its own "borders". Islam and mormonism involve polygamy (though sex with women must still be in the confines of marriage).5) Cultures which specifically practiced sexuality for nonpairbonding reasons and so must be accounted for are:
++Greeks, Romans, Egyptians (entertainment, celebration)
++Inuits (social bonding with guests)
++Aboriginals, Polynesians (entertainment and to some degree social bonding with guests)6) In modern society there are several sexual practices which are well known, yet involve no hint of pairbonding "emotions":
++Swinging/Gangbangs/Orgies (Group sexual encounters)
++Gloryholes (entirely anonymous sexual encounters)
++Masturbation (personal physical gratification)
++Prostitution and One night stands (paired but nonbonding sexual encounters)Given all of the above evidence, I would like to know why pairbonding or the emotions surrounding pairbonding should be considered a natural part of sex, arising from the evolution of human beings?Pairbonding and its intimate relationship to sex, appear to be nothing more than a blip on the timeline of human activity, a cultural intellectual fad introduced and promoted across the globe mainly by Judaism (or its offshoots).(Note: As a personal request to Shraf, I ask that "pairbonding" never be raised again in answer to any of my posts, nor in any thread I start, until you have addessed these issues. Your habit of doing this has become as annoying as Creationists dropping out of an argument, only to resurface later saying "evolution says man came from apes".)------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-12-2003]

I'm not going to comment on most of this post, except for these two things:

quote:

---

1) Studies on testicular size comparisons, indicate that human males have "evolved" to produce sperm in a non-monogamous environment.

​

2) Sperm production itself appears keyed to the possibility that there are rival partners, increasing when potential sexual partners are away for a period of time.

---

You've got that backwards. Humans have proportionally very small testes and low sperm production, and unusually large penises, compared to our nearest relatives.Also, we are far more monogamous than most of our relatives (although not all - for example, gibbons are probably, in general, more monogamous than us). According to the Oakland Zoo's commentary on gibbons, only 3% of mammals and 14% of primates are monogamous.So, we're actually relatively monogamous.A book that I really enjoyed reading about... oh, perhaps 8 years ago... was "The Third Chimpanzee". In their discussion about monogamy, they mention that probably the best animals to study when looking at polygamy and adultery in a generally monogamous relationship that mirrors human activity are actually ducks (a number of species). They're generally monogamous, but they "cheat" - and they try to cover up their cheating. It's almost eerie how well it corresponds to human behavior on the subject. Also rather concerning from the book was that the little data that we have on the rates of children being born to married women for which the father is not the woman's spouse. While there's only limited statistical data, the rates are amazingly high.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Ahhhhhhh... we cross swords at last!PARRY: I never said that we were more promiscuous or more developed for promiscuity than our nearest animal relatives. The question I was debating was whether pairbonding (monogamy) was setup for in the "design" of human sexuality.THRUST: In answer to this I said that testicular size comparisons and rates of sperm production indicate "design" or evolutionary development for nonmonogamy.
++We are actually in the middle for comparisons of testes size (putting us right between constant state of gangbanging, and one guy who has no competitors).
++I'm not sure what relative sperm production is between species, as I was referring to sperm production in human males based on social dynamics with sexual partners.Here is a link to an evolution of sex(ual psychology) class outline. It goes over the studies I am referring to, and includes references to them...
http://psychology.unn.ac.uk/nick/EPlec05.htm Those... animals!Seriously though, "far more monogamous" is a bit deceptive is it not? I have yet to see that outside of lipservice, pipedreams, the unfortunate, and the rare emotional fundamentalist, that any human is truly monogamous.The best that can really be said is that in our promiscuity, we are not as dramatic as other species.You may note that your own link states that claims humans should be counted as monogamous is debatable. Which is of course what is being done right here. Oh rei, this is terrible. Sexual morality is turning us all into ducks?It really shouldn't take much thought to shoot down the problems with the duck comparison. While most people laboring under the monogamous paradigm forced on society (for the last few millenia) may act like ducks, this is hardly what relationships look like outside of this paradigm.No one in the swinger community I am a part of has any inclination, much less tries, to cover up "cheating". Cheating is a fictitious social contruct, not an imbedded one. All of those societies I mentioned in my first post certainly did not act like those ducks. Many had no conceptions of cheating, and some allowed for multiple fathers of children.That book you mentioned may be good, but it sounds like some wishful thinking, denial, monogamocentrism, and imaginative projection on the author's part.I wonder if this means monogamous people float on water? (sorry. I was watching Monty Python recently).------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Ahhhhhhh... we cross swords at last!

---

It had to happen eventually - there's no way we could keep agreeing on everything forever. Although, reading over your post, I think you'll find that we're actually not in that much disagreement here.

quote:

---

THRUST: In answer to this I said that testicular size comparisons and rates of sperm production indicate "design" or evolutionary development for nonmonogamy.
++We are actually in the middle for comparisons of testes size (putting us right between constant state of gangbanging, and one guy who has no competitors).

---

Gorillas, the only close relative with smaller testes comparative to body size than us (in fact, smaller overall - averaging 1 oz for a, say, 350lb gorilla, compared to the average 200 lbs human male's 1.5) have absolutely no need for competition at all. A 120lb male chimpanzee, however, will have 4 oz testes. Bonobos are similarly proportioned to the common chimpanzee. I'm having trouble finding orangutan proportions offhand, but I recall that they're between human and chimpanzees. Plotting the points that I do have, we get ratios of:Chimp and Bonobo: 0.208% of body mass
Organgutan: ?
Human: 0.047% of body mass
Gorilla: 0.027% of body massIt would seem that, while humans have more competition than gorillas, we're still way off from our close relatives. And seing as monogamy is very rare in the animal world, and even fairly rare in primates, I'd say we're much closer to the monogamy side on the scheme of things. Of course, not completely monogamous by any stretch One interesting trend that seems to be correlated with how polyandrous/polygynous a species is, is the size ratio between males and females. For example, in completely polyandrous societies (such as ants, bees, etc), the one breeding female is massively larger than the males. In polygynous species (gorillas, lions, etc) the males are notably larger than the females. In completely monogamous species, they're generally almost the same size (gibbons, etc). In humans, we have males larger than females, but not incredibly dramatically.Thus, my view is that most signs point towards humans being generally monogamous, but with a polygynous and adulterous streak

quote:

---

Those... animals!

​

Seriously though, "far more monogamous" is a bit deceptive is it not? I have yet to see that outside of lipservice, pipedreams, the unfortunate, and the rare emotional fundamentalist, that any human is truly monogamous.

---

As I mentioned. I wish I had The Third Chimpanzee on hand so I could cite some of the statistics they quoted on the rates of children born to fathers other than the mother's spouse... but it was amazingly high

quote:

---

The best that can really be said is that in our promiscuity, we are not as dramatic as other species.

---

I'll agree to that. I'd say we're on the low end as far as promiscuity goes - but that doesn't say much for us, though.

quote:

---

It really shouldn't take much thought to shoot down the problems with the duck comparison. While most people laboring under the monogamous paradigm forced on society (for the last few millenia) may act like ducks, this is hardly what relationships look like outside of this paradigm.

​

No one in the swinger community I am a part of has any inclination, much less tries, to cover up "cheating". Cheating is a fictitious social contruct, not an imbedded one. All of those societies I mentioned in my first post certainly did not act like those ducks. Many had no conceptions of cheating, and some allowed for multiple fathers of children.

---

Ah, but the concept of "cheating" is an evolutionarily advantageous construct - be it social or instinctive - in many circumstances. As you are quite aware, for a species that invests a good portion of its life and energy into raising offspring, being cuckolded is a huge genetic disadvantage, and so an instinct or meme for a male to discourage its partner from mating with different males so (while attempting to mate with different females himself) is quite advantageous.Of course, as I like to say: We're humans. We're smart enough to learn that we can override social memes and, to some extent, instincts.

quote:

---

That book you mentioned may be good, but it sounds like some wishful thinking, denial, monogamocentrism, and imaginative projection on the author's part.

---

Actually, the point I was trying to claim, and the point the author makes, is for an in-between. More monogamous than the typical species on Earth, but not anywhere close to as monogamous as we like to pretend we are.

quote:

---

I wonder if this means monogamous people float on water? (sorry. I was watching Monty Python recently).

---

Churches! Very small rocks! Lead, lead!!------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-12-2003]

I realize we are pretty close to saying the same thing. But I am wondering how you are defining sexual monogamy.To me it means one person staying with one partner over a long period, without having sex with other partners. This is pretty much unheard of as a social "norm" in humans, until recently.Humans tend to become socially and sexually monogamous at least for short periods of time (ending in the 7 year itch?), which is likely related to child rearing, but sexual monogamy rarely lasts past 10 years, much less a lifetime.It appears to me that we are basically polygamous (sexually), with tendencies for short term monogamous (sexual and emotional) relationships.Tomaito, Tomatoe?As it is I am not really totally keen on making comparisons between species. While they stand as vague points of reference, each species really ought to be looked at by themselves for definitive statements. This is why I give more credit to anthropology and comparative history of cultures, or scientific studies of hormonal and glandular activity, than zoological analysis.As it is, I have yet to see any species (even the bonobos) be as sexually diverse as humans. Our brains have added a dimension of sexuality that certainly make us a lot more kinky. About the only ones kinkier would have to be dolphins (you know if they had hands they'd be doing just about everything we do, maybe more!). I actually do not find that disturbing. I hope the guys know, but then again they probably have another kid somewhere else. Actually this is not true. The most advantageous construct (evolution wise), is to make sure there is a good mix and that the best genes get the kids... while others may raise them as their own. Kind of a eugenics thing.As long as the females are getting pregnant, and a guy has had his shot at the gene pool, the requirements for evolutionary progress are satisfied (and the cuckold feels he has too).This model was used by the ancient spartans, as well as a few other minor cultures that encouraged children to have no particular father and raised as communal children (this goes along with the anti-infanticide theory in that link I gave).Actually Plato recommended it in his Republic too.Especially in humans, I cannot think of a more harmful social construct than "cheating". It forces people into hypocracy and to except the hypocracy of others out of guilt. And while I am unsure what ducks do when partners get caught cheating, humans tend to kill each other, or mess up the rearing of kids by teaching them to hate the other parent.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

6) In modern society there are several sexual practices which are well known, yet involve no hint of pairbonding "emotions":
++Swinging/Gangbangs/Orgies (Group sexual encounters)
++Gloryholes (entirely anonymous sexual encounters)
++Masturbation (personal physical gratification)
++Prostitution and One night stands (paired but nonbonding sexual encounters)

---

Actually, there are "hints" of pairbonding in some of these kinds of activities all the time.Orgies and other group sex involves some kind of emotional attachment if it is not entirely anonymous. If the individuals involved care if anyone were to drop dead while they were having sex with them, for instance, there are emotions involved. That's not pair bonding, but if the same group were to meet repeatedly, I am willing to bet that certain couples would begin to pair off.You might include men dating and falling in love with strippers. You might also include men falling in love or having feelings for prostitutes that they see repeatedly. (Roooooooxanne...You don't have to put on the red light. Those days are over, you don't have to sell your body to the night...)These are all things that are either occasionally observed in reality or easily conceivable.Another thing you are completely discounting is the prevelance in modern society of very effective birth control and abortion services.Would anonymous sex really be so fun for you if there was a strong probability that you were irresponsibly impregnating many women and abandoning them to deal with the consequences?Would the women paricipating in these activities feel anything close to the sexual freedom they enjoy currently if they risked pregnancy?You cannot list these current modern behaviors as evidence of any kind of evolutionary behavior regarding pair bonding because the use of the technology of birth control alters the evolutionary consequences of the behavior artifically.I would say that the behaviors you describe here are largely cultural.

quote:

---

If the individuals involved care if anyone were to drop dead while they were having sex with them, for instance, there are emotions involved. That's not pair bonding, but if the same group were to meet repeatedly, I am willing to bet that certain couples would begin to pair off.

---

Only to the same degree that couples would begin to "pair off" after several meetings at church socials, company picnics, etc where people come to meet and bond with each other socially. Some couples you come to like, some you don't. Sex is generally irrelevant to this equation at orgies (as you have sex with lots of people).

quote:

---

You might include men dating and falling in love with strippers. You might also include men falling in love or having feelings for prostitutes that they see repeatedly.

---

This has already been addressed elsewhere, but I will repeat it again. Yes, some people become attracted to the prostitutes and strippers they see. This shows either a confusion in the individual for why they are going to an entertainer in the first place, or the much more ordinary event of a sudden thought that in addition to being an entertainer... the person they are dealing with might make a great partner.This same behavior is seen at offices, museums, coffee shops etc where people go to do one thing and find someone they are attracted to. When I suddenly want to go out with that girl that gives me my mocha frappucino every day, does that mean it is the coffee serving that pulled me in, or the human trait of recognizing something in someone that we might like more of?You will find that for most prostitutes, even those who have regular clients, it is a small percentage of clients that move on to feeling something other than the girl is a cool person performing a very HOT service. Time may make them closer to friends, but not partners of any kind.Let's be clear, I never said Bonding was not something humans do. It is certainly something people do and they do it through ANY social activity. And the more time people spend with other people the more emotionally bonded they are to them. You can observe this very phenomenon in people that hate each other, yet after enough exposure miss the person when they are no longer around (and no I am not just talking about married couples).

quote:

---

Another thing you are completely discounting is the prevelance in modern society of very effective birth control and abortion services.

---

Actually I am not.First of all... you can have all sorts of sex which does not result in pregnancy (and that includes not using condoms). Besides mutual masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, and using "toys" for vaginal stimulation, there is also having sex in front of other people (social softswing parties). I might add that homosexual activity never results in pregnancy.Second of all... you are completely dismissing the FACT that there are/were whole cultures that practiced open sexuality. Exactly how did these societies deal with children before birth control?Well when the children born after May Day festivities came about, most ascribed them to the mother and her partner, despite any dissimilarities. In other ritual celebrations they considered them children of the Gods. Some cultures raised all children in more or less a communal way (which is something that renders the expense of childrearing arguments obsolete). And in many western societies, the women raised bastard children or killed them (infanticide was more or less like abortion today). And some cultures allowed for polygamous marriages.You have once again used modern (Judaic derived) concepts of sexuality to arrive at a statement regarding evolutionary forces. Why not look at how other cultures treated sex and childbirth? Or (as I raised with my first post) are we to view all these other cultures as having "overcome" evolution?

quote:

---

I would say that the behaviors you describe here are largely cultural.

---

Masturbation is a cultural phenomenon? Prostitution (which has existed since time began and crossed all cultures) is cultural? History (across all cultures) littered with accounts of people have sex for sexual pleasure is exhibiting merely cultural phenomena?I would like a better explanation than the above assertion. If one looks at history (and I did this in my first post), you will see that promiscuity to the point of prostitution and orgies were accepted common place practices across the globe, until cultures (mainly the Judaic culture) came in to stamp such practices out.And in being "stamped out", I mean they were simply oppressed. Despite largescale indoctrination of these monogamous social norms, promiscuity and the above practices continued underground and spring up whenever laws were lifted.I am not saying that everyone everywhere at all times wants to run around having orgies and never having an emotional partner. That is totally up to personal taste.What I am saying is that such open sexualities are omnipresent in all societies, and whether or not single emotional partners were common practice for childrearing, outside of a few sexually domineering cultures, the rest allowed sex for pleasure outside of those bonds. And masturbation (which is completely sex for pleasure) is just about universal to all human beings, regardless of emotional desires for companionship.About the only thing I can agree with is that gloryholes are kind of a cultural phenomenon.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-16-2003]

A few years back, I was discussing an article I had read with a friend while walking down the street. Among other things it talked about the relation of the size of male genitalia to the degree of monogamy practiced by the species.I was just prattling on, thinking it was all very interesting. At one point, I realized we had just crossed paths with a young woman, just as I was uttering the sentence:"Our testicles are rather small, but our penises are huge."The 'our', of course, referred "human males", not specifically my friend and myself. But I wonder what Miss Jane Doe thought. I suppose I could have ran after her to explain, but that didn't seem like a good idea.

Is there any conceivable benefit to you to qualify that statement to eavesdroppers? To the contrary!

quote:

---

"My own stance is that the only "evolutionary" parts of sex are physical pleasure, and hormonal drives to have sex, both of which increase the chance of more offspring. "

---

There is more than a little bit of ToMAYto/toMAHto going on in this thread, but this statement is pretty much silly. There's NO evolutionary advantage to a father providing for his family? Even allowing for cheating, etc., you don't think that some form of pair-bonding with a preferred sexual partner who is bearing your children would have any reproductive consequences? And would pair-bonding with your reproductive partner make much more sense than random pair-bonding?There are cultural layers galore on sex, but your statement simply doesn't take into account the benefit of taking care of one's children, and one's children's caregiver.However, you then say that you don't belive that "pair bonding is a necessary part of sexual activity" - but this is a far, far weaker statement than your opening statement. The word "necessary" pretty much assures that this statement is true.That sex occurs outside of the context of pair-bonding is obvious. That there is no evolutionary connection between pair-bonding and sex is not obvious. I would claim it is obviously NOT true. To claim that sex outside of a single pair in a long term committment is the only "natural" sex is also obviously false.I think these extreme views can be clearly abandoned.There are other issues at stake here, though. But these are in far murkier waters, and include but are not limited to:1. Should certain sex practices be illegal? For most cases, I think not. Prostitution is different, because prostitution is not a sex act. It is a business transaction. Whether or not the business transaction should be outlawed I'll leave others to discuss. Involuntary sex is of course an obvious case.2. Are certain sex acts "immoral". Obviously we're in completely non-empirical waters here.3. Are some sex acts dehumanizing or unhealthy? Good question. Certianly there are unhealthy sexual situations. Are there any categorical distinctions to be made? Is a gloryhole inherently dehumanizing? Prostitution? Missionary position?4. Is some sex "better" than others? Well, yeah. We can agree on that. Oh, WHAT sex is better? Well, you know.I think these sorts of discussions flit between these questions without people realizing, and these questions are difficult to tease apart from each other.If we really want to stick to an evolutionary understanding only, I think it's clear that the extreme positions are inplausible, and even proven false. Certainly we agree that commitment to sexual partners has reproductive consequences, AND sex feels good even without commitment.

quote:

---

There is more than a little bit of ToMAYto/toMAHto going on in this thread, but this statement is pretty much silly

---

Well actually there is a bit more strawman building and avoidance of points than tomayto, tomahto.My statement regarding evolution, when put into context of the rest of the post, is not quite so silly. In my posts (in this thread) I clearly state that there may very well be an evolutionary connection between bonding (even perhaps PAIRbonding) and sex. The question is to what degree and in what direction.Sex has not been made a tool for pairbonding alone. That is all I have ever been saying. Neither is it entangled with it such that emotions of pairbonding must be overcome in order to have sex just for pleasure.Thus the only evolutionarily NECESSARY parts to every sexual act are physical pleasure and the hormonal drives to have sex. Those are the only drives which exist in EVERY case of sex, and they are wound up in the drive for procreation not "bonding".

quote:

---

That sex occurs outside of the context of pair-bonding is obvious. That there is no evolutionary connection between pair-bonding and sex is not obvious. I would claim it is obviously NOT true.

---

As long as the first sentence is understood to be true, the last sentence does not make as much sense. If sex does occur outside of pairbonding, why is it OBVIOUSLY true that there is an evolutionary connection between the too. Obviously there is no 1 to 1 connection, and there are other explanations for bonding beyond PAIRbonding. This was given in the link that I supplied.I do grant that there may be evolutionary advantages for bonding, and that it may have taken advantage of sex drives to help. My problem is seeing that it MUST have been PAIRbonding, or that even if it was pair oriented (which it very well could have been) that sex was coopted for that purpose.On the advantage of pairbonding over groupbonding, could you explain what is so obvious (give evidence) that early humans did not use hidden estrus and unknown paternity to avoid infanticide, and indeed to elicit group care giving for children? Maybe one of early humanaity's biggest advantages was social ties and communal living.This is not to knock pairing, but there may have been more than one pair, especially when it comes to males (which is seen in gorrilas).

quote:

---

To claim that sex outside of a single pair in a long term committment is the only "natural" sex is also obviously false.

---

I agree, and that's why I never said it.

quote:

---

There are other issues at stake here, though.

---

I actually have no idea where these issues come in when discussing the evolutionary history of sex and emotional commitments. They are all cultural questions from what I can tell.I'd be happy to field them... somewhere else.

quote:

---

Certainly we agree that commitment to sexual partners has reproductive consequences, AND sex feels good even without commitment.

---

I am in absolute agreement on both counts.Now the question remains why do reproductive consequences point to longterm (beyond 10 years) monogamous pairbonding in humans as the only, or best, evolutionary response?It is quite clear that in early human history this was not "selected" for as advantageous. We certainly enter history beyond simple pairbonding sexuality.It is also known that other social species can cope with unknown paternity. They simply have different mechanisms for childrearing. There is social bonding of course, and sex may help it out, but it is not lone pairs.I think it is not definitive either way, though some evidence leans to the communal aspects of early human life.When discussing evolution, it is impressed upon creationists that the model of evolution (and in fact any model of species diversity) must deal with (ie explain) all of the evidence. This is true for any model. Unfortunately, I have yet to see anyone construct a model regarding human sexuality using all the evidence I gave such that pairbonding is pointed to as an evolutionary companion of human sexuality.I think rei and I are a bit tomayto tomahto regarding how to term human sexuality, but I do not see her conflicting with the model I outlined. Unless I am wrong?My stated model is in direct conflict with schraf's stated model, and I would like to see how the evidence gets strung together, other than being dismissed as "overcoming" evolution.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-15-2003]

What has been advanced so far, is an argument (schraf's Pairbonding Model... PM) that pairbonding and sex are connected through evolution, and so pairbonding is a natural part of sexual acts and monogamy the model of efficient human reproduction.My own argument, using counterevidence of polygamy and promiscuity, was not to prove that Polygamy is the natural state of human sexuality forged by evolution. My only point was to rebut the PM, specifically by undercutting its supposed evolutionary underpinnings.It is my opinion that the term "evolution" in this matter is being thrown around a bit loosely and we must realize what a strong claim this is, and so what support is necessary.To say the PM is correct, is to say that Pairbonding was such an efficient method of childrearing for humans (or their precursors) that those who did not pairbond were eliminated on such a scale that it became a GENETIC TRAIT, passed on to children through sexual reproduction itself.Not a few have come to support the PM vocally, but I want to ask if this is really what people mean to agree with?If so, what evidence points to:1) Monogamous childrearing as a sufficiently better method that it excludes other possibilities...2) That early humans used only monogamous childrearing strategies...3) That we are genetically predisposed to desiring monogamous childrearing situations to the exclusion of desiring other sexual partners, or sex for nonbonding reasons.I believe the evidence I have given is strong enough to refute any of these ideas.The best argument given to date has been that men's testes, while larger than gorilla's testes, are much smaller than those of other primates. This has been inaccurately portrayed as indicating a monogamous tendency, instead of a lack of male competition. In fact male gorilla's are basically polygamous. It is just that the biggest male ape gets all the girls.Similarly, female gorillas are not monogamous either, and will change partners based on changing power structure.So if we look at primates in total, we see a range from male dominated polygamy to rampant polygamy/promiscuity. The real difference then seems to be degree of female freedom to choose partners. Thus the size of testes may more accurately reflect female independence in partner selection than male social competition.All of this (regarding size of testes) does not help the idea that human primates came from an environment where single couple childrearing strategies were a major influence on shaping sexuality and bonding.The next best evidence has been anecdotal, or comparisons to other species which act similar to what we commonly view as human sexual behavior (ie ducks and cheating).It is my contention that both of these are simply ethnocentric biases.Anecdotes: While it is perfectly accurate for a person to say "I experience this" and so it must be addressed in a theory of sexuality, this is not what is being done.What is actually being said (intentionally or not) is "I experience this" so that must be what is natural.Well it may be natural (I would say it is), but is this "nature" shaped by social custom, or evolution? Is it person wide, or humanity wide?The feelings (and so the neurochemicals) of bonding with a partner are almost undoubtedly evolutionarily driven. But the fact that these bondings are expressed only to ONE other partner, are more likely environmental than genetic.The fact that many humans bond emotionally with one partner, and yet feel sexually attracted to other potential partners, would certainly indicate the expression of how humans bond sexually is socially driven.This does not make any style of bonding more or less natural, but puts the emphasis on what is shaping the nature.Comparisons: I think this is especially weak as it looks for what an individual views as human behavior first, before looking for similarities. The fact is another individual in another culture could easily point to another species and find similarities there.For example if polygamous marriage were dominant, a scientist could point to gorillas to show that it is similar to how humans act sexually. One male has lots of females as long as he can provide for them.The duck example was particularly stretched as concepts of cheating are not (and were not) known to all cultures. Thus such behaviors are culturally isolated (and were unlikely to be genetic).Does this make sense? When we look to animal comparisons in this way, we assume our personal bias is something all humans do, and then look for the corroboration.What I am hoping I have shown is that the PM, actually requires a lot more supporting evidence than what has been given. And that personal experience does not necessarily support the PM at all, nor does it require the PM to define those experiences as natural.My argument maintains that while humans are social and do bond, sexual habits are pretty diverse and best explained as expressions of environmental and social influences.I would seriously like to hear what people feel has the best supporting evidence, and if it is not mine, what evidence there is to support the PM (or your own theory if you have a different one).------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-17-2003]

I found a news article in Discover magazine (their top 100 science topics of 2003) that has a pretty important bearing on the sex=love topic.One argument that primates such as babboons have polygamous, and quite promiscuous relationships is that it would protect offspring by not allowing fathers to know which is their child and so keep them from harming any.HOWEVER, it is has recently been discovered that fathers can identify their own children and do give them preferential treatment. Scientists are unsure how the fathers know, but theorize it may have to do with smell.Thus promiscuity is not merely a trait developed to reduce predation of offspring. I find this interesting as it was a theory that I could buy into.Without this connection, it appears that maybe sexual behavior is not really regulated by evolutionary controls at all. Perhaps monogamy/promiscuity is up to the individual "monkey", and most choose promiscuity unless social behaviors develop (outside evolution) that limit this activity.Hmmmmmm. Just something to think about.

---

holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-03-2004]

quote:

---

There is more than a little bit of ToMAYto/toMAHto going on in this thread, but this statement is pretty much silly. There's NO evolutionary advantage to a father providing for his family? Even allowing for cheating, etc., you don't think that some form of pair-bonding with a preferred sexual partner who is bearing your children would have any reproductive consequences? And would pair-bonding with your reproductive partner make much more sense than random pair-bonding?

​

There are cultural layers galore on sex, but your statement simply doesn't take into account the benefit of taking care of one's children, and one's children's caregiver.

---

Sorry to butt in, but from an evolutionary success PoV (i.e.
leaving more offspring) wouldn't a strategy of impregnating
any available female increase the chances of leaving behind
more of your own offspring than putting all your eggs in one
basket?Likewise for females, the more male 'input' (if you'll
excuse the phrase) must surely increase the chances of
successful fertilisation.Multiple 'bonding' would also tend to make a more cohesive
society, surely?

Hi Peter:You've put your finger on the key question - and provided the only realistic answer at the same time, whether you realize it or not. The entire concept of sexual selection rests on the fundamental conflict between male and female reproductive strategies. Because females produce a few (comparatively) largish gametes and males produce lots of small gametes, a male can potentially mate with a large number of females without effecting his fitness if a given female is less-than-optimum, whereas a female's fitness can be negatively effected if she mates with the wrong male. As Futuyma puts it,

quote:

---

Females are a limiting resource for males, which compete for mates, but males are not a limiting resource for females. Moreover, females, because of the greater cost of error they incur, may be expected to resist mating unless presented with the "right" stimuli. Because a male is capable of multiple matings, variation in mating success is generally greater among males than among females. (Futuyma, D 1998 "Evolutionary Biology", Sinauer, pg 587)

---

Obviously, like anything else in biology, there are species that provide exceptions to the rule - Futuyma goes on to note several species that exhibit sex-role reversal like the duck Phalaropus fulicarius, where the females produce more eggs than males can attend to and compete for males. However, the idea is the same one of limiting resources leading to sexual selection.As far as the rest of this thread goes, attempting to determine the genetic component or adaptive basis of a particular behavior or suite of behaviors is pretty, hmmm, difficult, to say the least. As far as that goes, even trying to determine what would be considered normative for a particular behavior is totally species-dependent. Worse still, there is behavioral variance within a given population - just like the variation of other phenotypical traits - so trying to say "this is normal, and this is why it evolved" is a fools' game beyond very broad generalizations. Behavioral ecology (a synthesis of ethology, evolutionary biology, and evolutionary ecology) may offer some insights in the future, but at this point most of what I've read about it seems to be generating more questions than answers - in the sense that there is some difficulty developing valid generalizations. Like about every other rule in biology... Oh, and holmes: don't dismiss "The Third Monkey" without reading it. It's a bit dated, perhaps, and written for a popular audience, but I personally consider Jared Diamond to be a pretty damn good author on the subject of biological and cultural evolution (for what that's worth).