Sex at Dawn - Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha
How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships
Evolutionarily speaking we are just apes, no different from chimps, bonobos, etc. And our ancestors were highly sexually active with no such notion as monogamy.
Marriage is crumbling and more and more people are diagnosed with sexual dysfunction, while anything non-monogamous is still seen like crazy, a taboo.
[bq] “Contemporary culture misinterprets the link between love and sex.”
“The standard narrative”:
Boy meets girl
They assess each other: Is she young, without much previous sex/kids but able to bear lots of children? Is he wealthy or will be and can support a family?
If yes, they “mate”, forming a long term bond
But both look for fling, she with guys genetically superior to him, he with anyone
But while this seems evolutionarily plausible, it’s not! Just a product of western culture.
For humans, everything changed with agriculture.
[q] “A catastrophe from which we have never recovered”
- Jared Diamond
Pre agriculture humans were sexually very casual, usually having several ongoing sexual relationships at a time.
Forager societies extremely egalitarian, sharing everything. Best way to distribute risk.
With agriculture, private property became norm. And for the first time in our history, paternity became a main concern. Previously parental effort diffused into group.
I. The Origin of the Specious
1. Remembering the Yucatan
What is considered delicious in one culture is seen as revolting in another. Yet we assume that some things are just naturally “right” or “wrong” to eat. Same thing true for sexual customs.
2. What Darwin didn’t know about Sex
Standard story: Men try to spread their cheap and plentiful sperm as wide as possible while women protect their expensive scarce eggs for the right, genetically superior male.
This story seems to fit a lot of our preconceptions and neatly seems to explain a lot of behavior.
We also believe that prehistoric life was mostly short and painful, and sex extremely brutish.
“Flinstonization”: Project our modern assumptions on prehistory to come up with myths that seem plausible.
Our current predominant “understanding” of sexual evolution is based on such a myth, leading to norms almost everyone thinks we should follow but that fit very few of us.
Evolution doesn’t make things “better”, just better adapted to the current environment (but that can change).
Evolutionary psychology applies the same thinking to our behaviors.
Females are thought to have a low libido, very sparingly looking for sexual pleasures, yet we heap scorn on women who are freely sexual and invented all sorts of ways (historically) to keep female libido in check.
[bq] “Why the electrified high-security razor-wire fence to contain a kitty-cat?”
Accepting that women enjoy sex at least as much as men is important. So many of these false assumption lead to unrealistic expectations, frustration, and disappointment.
[q] “Modern love’s central anxiety […] the expectation that romance and sexual attraction can last a lifetime of coupled togetherness despite much evidence to the contrary.”
- Laura Kipnis
When sexual passion runs dry, can the only “moral” option be to just accept it or to leave your loved partner (and potentially family)?
Our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos, practice multi-male, multi-female mating relationships.
Promiscuity is now a derogatory word, but it does not mean random sex with strangers. It just implies multiple ongoing sexual relationships.
3. A Closer Look At the Standard Narrative of Human Sexual Evolution
Standard Narrative (SN) is mistaken.
Humans are extremely sexual, and whether we acknowledge it or not, the evolved yearnings are there “and clamor for our attention”. Denying it comes at a cost.
Four main assumption:
Weak female libido
Male parental investment (MPI)
Sexual jealousy and paternity certainty
Extended receptivity and concealed ovulation
According to SN, male’s only way to ensure his paternity is sexual exclusivity
SN depiction of women boils down to prostitution: Women exchange sexual services for access to resources
[q] “The female […] with the rarest exception is less eager than the male.”
- Charles Darwin
Many serious studies seem to claim extremely weak female libido.
SN basically built on assumption that life is based on economics and game theory. We want to produce the maximum number of offspring who survive and reproduce.
According to SN, male parental investment uniquely high in humans. Assumes that caring exclusively for your own child would give it a survival advantage. Further assumes female fidelity and knowing who is your child, as well as the absence of sharing of resources in hunter gatherer society.
“Mixed strategy”: Males want to maximize partner quantity, females quality.
Extreme female strategy: Marry rich and caring guy for support and have sex with genetically superior guy (in secret) around ovulation for better offspring.
SN: Women worry about emotional infidelity since that might make them loose access to the male’s resources. Men worry about sexual infidelity since the woman might conceive someone else’s child, which he might unknowingly raise, wasting his resources.
Concealed ovulation: Almost all other female mammals show when they are able to reproduce, e.g. female genitals swelling to double their size or turning bright red in some primates, and females only receptive to sex during that time. Humans unique in hiding ovulation and females being receptive to sex during the entire menstrual cycle.
Two contradictory explanation:
Women want to keep men interested and around all the time making it less likely they look for sex elsewhere.
Women want to confuse men and make it less likely for them to know who their own offspring are if female has multiple partners, so that one male doesn’t kill the other’s offspring.
SN paints both men and women by nature as whores, liars and cheats.
4. The Ape in the Mirror
Chimps and Bonobos genetically closer to human than gorilla.
Gibbons are the only monogamous ape. Genetically the most distant from us.
Bonobos have high sex drive that goes much beyond reproduction. It’s a central part of culture and community. Gives them evolutionary advantage of righter bonds and strengthened society. Gibbons on the other hand live in completely isolated small groups.
SN makes us believe that we are only highly social ape that practices monogamy.
Often chimpanzees are used to model humans, but there is a problem: Chimps highly hierarchical, while human hunter-gatherers much more social and highly egalitarian in sharing resources, e.g. meet after successful hunt.
Also chimps data shows them as extremely violent and aggressive, but all this data was taken under circumstances where their natural habitat was disturbed, something that equally triggers unrest in human society.
—> Need to be careful when using chimp models
[q] “The chimpanzee resolves sexual issues with power; the bonobo resolves power issues with sex.”
- Frans de Waal
Bonobos were discovered and extensively studied extremely late compared to other primates. Had they been found first, the model and assumptions of our own primate past might be radically different.
Both humans and bonobos have a genetic variation (which chimps lost) that produces more oxytocin, which is important for pro-social feelings like trust, generosity, love, and eroticism.
Female dominated bonobo society leads to much lower stress levels than chimp society with males constantly competing for dominance.
Helen Fisher, one of the key “experts” and promoters of the SN, talks at length how similar human and bonobo sexuality is, just to then dismiss bonobos as a good model for past human behavior since the are the only ape (she clearly doesn’t count us) displaying such behavior. She calls exactly those traits that bonobos share with us “extremes of primate sexuality”.
“Neo-Victorianism”: We believe pair-bonding has to be “the right thing” so try to bend any evidence to support that, reasoning backwards from there.
Fisher goes on to say that the fact that the bonobos don’t practice monogamy or raise children in husband-wife pairs means that they are not suitable model for human origins.
Chimp models of early humans as “killer apes” ignores fact that remaining human hunter-gatherer tribes don’t have organized warfare, are extremely egalitarian, and generous with resources.
We project our post-agriculture society onto prehistory, “flintstonizing” it.
II. Lust in Paradise (Solitary?)
5. Who Lost What in Paradise?
Agriculture hasn’t only domesticated plants and animals, but also us humans.
On a personal level most people were off worse due to agriculture: famine, vitamin deficiency, stunted growth, reduction in life span, increased violence…
[bq] "Disconnect between in individual an group interests.”
Humans desperate for social contact. Isolation one of the worst punishments imaginable.
Our complex social interactions are what sets us apart most from other animals. Our large brain is largely a result of that (especially the need and use of language).
The other unique trait: hyper sexuality. Many animals only mate infrequently and briefly, for reproduction. Sex for pleasure with various partners is extremely human. Man and woman only having sex infrequently and only for reproduction, the Christina ideal, is essentially “acting like animals”.
Hunter-Gatherers had a depth and intimacy of social interaction few of us could imagine or tolerate.
6. Who’s Your Daddies?
In Amazon tribes, fetus is an accumulation of sperm, and if woman would stop having sex, fetus would stop to grow and develop. Women seek “contributions” from many men with different talents in hope child will get each of them. Many tribes in South America and elsewhere share this belief that child can have multiple fathers. Even though these tribes have been separated for millennia or more.
In those societies, multiple fathers have interest in and care for a child —> Higher survival chance
Men feel gratitude towards other men for contributing to the conception of their child.
[bq] “Socio-Erotic Exchanges (S.E.Ex. for short) strengthen the bonds among individuals in small nomadic societies […], forming a crucial, durable web of affection, affiliation, and mutual obligation.”
Similar thing observed for football teams or bands who spend extended times in very close/intimate contact.
SEEx played central role in forager times for social cohesion and human survival overall.
In many societies today, ancient ones and more modern ones, still common practice. And women at least as eager participant as men! Female “disinterest”/reluctancy is a purely cultural product, not biological.
Out of all primate species, the few that practice monogamy all live in treetops. In general, only 3% of mammals are monogamous.
Adultery extremely common among humans everywhere, even in societies with severe punishment (e.g. stoning) against it.
If monogamy were natural/evolved, why would so many of us risk so much against it?
Not a single group of humans has been found to be truly monogamous, adultery documented in every society. Also every group-living primate is non-monogamous.
In Bonobos society, continual sexual availability/receptiveness of female leads to less conflict between males over mating opportunities, allowing lager groups/societies.
Paternal certainty, key of the SN, most likely far less or not at all imprint to men before agriculture.
7. Mommies Dearest
Many tribes also believe a child can have many mothers, every woman who breastfeeds the child (which can be many) is considered a true biological mother.
Child gets very strong sense of belonging to entire tribe; rarely feels isolated. As a result, far fewer psychological problems.
Still see huge desire in almost all humans to coo over random strangers babies.
Also in many primates, infant sharing is common.
Again have “Flintstonization”: Take our current family norms and think of them as eternal human nature, projecting them back onto our prehistoric ancestors.
[bq] “Could it be that the atomic isolation of husband-wife nucleus with an orbiting child or two is in fact a culturally imposed aberration for our species - as ill suited to our evolved tendencies as corsets, chastity belts, and suits of armor?"
The nuclear family of husband/wife is supposed to be the natural thing, yet is on the decline and failing more and more.
8. Making a Mess of Marriage, Mating, and Monogamy
Lust and love often get confused and mistaken. Similarly absence of lust is often seen as absence of love.
Love and sex also very commonly confused among researchers and evolutionary psychologists.
Evolutionary psychology always striving to find the “human universal”. Under big pressure to conform to political agendas or societal norms.
“Marriage” also used extremely loosely in anthropological literature. Also apply human norms about Western marriage to animals with terms like “cheating”, “faithful”,… obscuring actual objective research.
Confirmation Bias!!
Without a clear definition, we can find “marriage” everywhere we look (if we want to see it).
The arrangements called “marriage” in societies around the world vary immensely. From just hanging hammocks next to each other, to multi-marriage arrangements, and marriages in which the couple never see each other again after the ceremony. Few of these are supposed to be permanent or come with the expectation of sexual exclusivity. But when we Westerners hear “marriage”, automatically assume that. The term is used way too broadly leading to confusion and obscuring what’s actually going on.
9. Paternity Certainty: The Crumbling Cornerstone of the Standard Narrative
In many societies past and present, weddings were celebrated with the wife sleeping with many of the husband’s friends or relatives.
The Mosuo tribe doesn’t know the concepts of husband and wife, women choose freely who to spend every night with and kids are raised by the woman’s family/brothers. Often completely unknown who father is.
[Random NFW: Love and sex are like red wine and good cheese. They are amazing together but that doesn’t mean that they are equivalent, or that you can’t enjoy one without the other.]
Despite many societies past and present where women have high social status, like the Mosuo, many scientists claim that all societies are and always have been patriarchies.
Problem also: When scientist look for “true matriarchy” they often imagine the exact mirror image of patriarchy just with genders reversed, but that’s nonsense.
Interestingly, in woman dominated societies, there is generally more sex, and more open attitudes towards it. So men, instead of blaming women for not having more sex, should just give women more power/autonomy.
Traditionally, many animlals from penguins to desert voles and songbirds were thought to be ideals of monogamy. But more recent research paints a very different picture. While some of them do seem to stay as pairs for a long time, sexuality is usually not part of the deal.
10. Jealousy: A Beginner’s Guide to Coveting Thy Neighbor’s Spouse
If a society assures that something is “normal” we do many things that other societies might consider crazy.
In forager societies where generosity with sex was considered normal, jealousy was considered abnormal and even publishable.
Most sexuality studies deeply flawed in that they use 18-25 year old undergrad students as they model for “general truths” about human sexuality. Not just age is an issue, but also social class, especially when doing these studies in poorer countries. An undergrad student from Angola is probably from upper class and in no way representative of the general population in terms of sexual beliefs and behaviors. Studies' claims to be general, even if done across multiple countries/continents, are simply unfounded. Also all studied subjects from post-agricultural societies.
Why should erotic love be an exception and be zero-sum? All other types of love, e.g. love for children, or love for favorite food, pet, etc can apply to a single one just as well as to multiple. If a parent would state to love one of his/her children more than others it would cause an outcry. Opposite for erotic/romantic love.
[bq] “If fear is removed from jealousy, what’s left?"
[q] “All that we can surmise of humankind’s genetic history argues for a more liberal sexual morality, in which sexual practices are to be regarded first as bonding devices and only second as a means of procreation.”
- E. O. Wilson
III. The Way We Weren’t
11. "The Wealth of Nature” (Poor?)
Starting from Thomas Malthus around 1800, it has been believed that the standard of (human) existence is starvation and poverty, since we will always breed to the limit (or beyond) our production capabilities.
Malthus also assumed that prehistoric life was a fight of everyone against everyone.
But Malthus’s assumptions about population growth, especially pre-agriculture, were grossly wrong.
Similarly Thomas Hobbes who wrote prehistoric life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” live in a Europe in upheaval and a crowded and dirty London and Paris, and just projected all that into his assumptions.
New data shows the few of our ancestors ever felt population-induced scarcity.
[bq] “Most of our ancestors lived in a largely unpopulated world, chock-full of food.”
[q] “Poverty […] is the invention of civilization.”
- Marshall Sahlims
We might look at forager tribes and think of them as poor, but they might be far more content and “wealthy” then we are. Just because they lack things we consider necessities of civilized life doesn’t mean they’d actually want them.
12. The Selfish Meme (Nasty?)
[q] “The myth of economic man explains the organizing principle of contemporary capitalism, nothing more or less.”
- John Gowdy
Scarcity-based economic thinking is cultural, not a human universal.
Economists who base many of their theories purely on the idea of self-interest completely ignore the importance and value of community, and the generosity that builds it.
Recent experience showed that brain shows much stronger positive signal to cooperation than the negative signal when it faces betrayal.
Small communities self-regulate and develop mechanisms against “cheating”.
Problems arise when it goes to larger scales and there is no “local personal shame”, e.g. climate change, overfishing,…
Dunbar’s number: Humans lose track of who’s doing what in their community when the number of individuals grows above around 150.
Living in such small groups, reciprocity is normal to us. Beyond that, due to anonymity, it gets problematic, and our behaviors change.
Misconception that evolution leads to constant improvement to some final ideal state, but it’s really just adaptation to an ever-changing environment.
Studies of prehistoric bones/teeth showed that there were cycles of fasting and feasting, but that starvation was extremely rare.
Much fewer signs of starvation in prehistoric foragers than in later societies where people had settled down. Also less malnutrition and infectious diseases than farmer societies.
Settled societies live under the assumption of shortage, always saving. Foragers live under assumption of affluence.
[q] “Stone Age populations lived healthier lives than did most of the people who came immediately after them.”
- Marvin Harris
Agriculture lead to a rapid decrease in average health (and size, we’re only now growing tall again).
[q] “We’re still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it’s unclear whether we can solve it.”
- Jared Diamond
Foragers find food so easily that often a day of light work can sustain them for three full days, giving them ample leisure time.
It’s not a zero-sum game for foragers, so selfishness less important than generosity and a strong community.
13. The Never Ending Battle over Prehistoric War (Brutish)
As many believe poverty is intrinsic to our prehistoric ancestors, so they believe constant war and conflict was.
But why would egalitarian forager societies with essentially no property and unlimited space fight wars?
Evolutionary pschologist Steven pinker backed his view in a TED talk with a bunch of statistics of war-dash in prehistoric societies, but all the data actually came from modern day tribes, none of which are foragers, and much of the data is even wrong. He still claimed that it represents a good estimate of hunter-gatherer war deaths.
Man also refer to primate studios of rape and violence but completely ignore the bonobo, where in decades of observation not a single case of rape has been observed.
Even chimp studies that show them as extremely violent are flawed. They only turned violent when researchers decided to feed them daily at their research camp to encourage them to come there. Now there was a huge (but limited) treasure to be had for only a short amount of time every day. That confused them and lead to dramatically increased rates of conflict. But this detail of human intervention is largely ignored in. studies.
Agriculture and livestock are like the boxes of bananas in the jungle. Suddenly there was something worth fighting for, a reliable yet limited resource.
Also find that population density one of the best indicators for war, and that rose dramatically with agriculture.
Skeletal finds of prehistoric humans also exceedingly rarely show signs of interpersonal conflict/violence.
Question of whether we or our ancestors “naturally” warmongering or peace-loving depends on circumstances. In pre-agricultural society peace-loving, much more to lose through conflict than to gain.
14. The Longevity Lie (Short?)
Height expectancy in prehistoric times was only 3 feet. Problem is this statistic is completely misleading. Adult males were on average at least as tall as us, but high infant mortality means that for every 3 adult remains we find 7 infant remains, which is how height expectancy is calculated. Same is true for life expectancy.
Many, including scientist, use this false reasoning to claim that people rarely lived past their thirties, but that’s nonsense. Only thing that’s been improved dramatically is infant mortality, not general age tendency. Ignoring infant mortality, age expectancy in prehistory was 66-91 years [p. 202], with longer health span than today.
Infanticide also common among foragers to control community size. As horrible as this may sound, still much more common than we think globally in many societies.
Overall health and longevity actually took a sever hit from agriculture. Foragers lived healthily and actively until old age.
Only now slowly undoing some of the diseases that could only spread through high-density population and domesticated animals.
[bq] “The claim that modern medicine and sanitation save us from infectious diseases that ravaged pre-agricaltural people (something we often hear) is like arguing that seat belts and air bags protect us from car crashes that were fatal to our prehistoric ancestors.”
Stress, and particular cortisol, strong immunosuppressants that make getting ill much more likely. Forager lifestyle with plenty of sleep and leisure had very little (chronic) stress.
IV. Bodies in Motion
15. Little Big Man
In gorillas and other species where males fight over females, males are much larger than females. The fact that human (and chimpanzee/bonobo) males are only 10-20% bigger than females suggests that there has historically been little physical competition over females.
This small size difference rules out polygyny, or building of harems, in our ancestors, but it doesn’t say whether it supports monogamy or polygamy, even though most count it as an argument for monogamy (despite the fact that chimps/bonobos with the same difference are polygamous).
Gibbons, who are monogamous, are actually the same size.
Sperm competition is another important factor. If females have sex with many males, sperm competes over fertilizing the egg. Besides other “tricks” off the sperm, sheer number of sperm gives an advantage. Polygamous species like bonobo have huge testicles and produce lots of sperm. Gorillas, who fight it out before the sex, have a tiny penis and testicles.
Human testicles and penis are both on the larger end of the spectrum, suggesting promiscuity.
16. The Truest Measure of a Man
Usually assumption is that evolution takes very long time, so people assume that male testicle size hasn’t changed from forager ancestors, but that assumption could be wrong, changes can occur on very short timescales.
Our “powerful” and large genitals and high sperm volume are not explicable unless we assume that there is a race or contest.
Also sperm chemistry hints at that. Actually ejaculate in multiple quick spurts. First one contains chemicals to protect sperm against other chemicals, last one contains chemicals that kill other sperms (to protect against competition from the next man).
Researchers (and porn producers) have found that men get turned on by images of “sperm competition”, i.e. ganging. Reverse scenario of one guy with multi-female far less popular. Also found that when watching this kind of porn, sperm in ejaculate is more motile.
17. Sometimes a Penis is Just a Penis
In monogamous apes, penis is extremely small and unremarkable (no evolutionary pressure). Humans have the longest, thickest and most flexible penis of all apes.
Particular shape and thrusting motion create vacuum in vagina pulling back any sperm that might already be there.
External testicles basically serve as “fridge” for storing extra sperm, in case extra sperm is needed. No monogamous ape has them externally, the risks aren’t worth the benefit for them.
Recently, over just a few decades, human sperm production has worryingly decreased. And in general, our sperm production tissue seems extremely under-utilized compared to other mammals, hinting at a past in which we had much more sex.
Promiscuous apes are naturally protected from passing on infertility. But in culturally imposed monogamy, even men with very low fertility can pass on their genes, leading to overall decrease of human fertility.
Monogamy (besides other factors) might be a main contributor to current fertility crisis.
18. The Prehistory of O
In monogamous situation, men and women are in some ways comically incompatible. He comes quickly and once, leaving her unsatisfied and hoping for more orgasms.
Hysteria, which basically has the symptoms of being horny and sexually unsatisfied, was one of the earliest diseases diagnosed, and up to early 20th century doctors provided “massages” to relieve the symptoms.
Masturbation in females seen as a terrible thing and cause for many diseases and up to 20th century a “cure” was surgical removal of the clitoris.
Still today, WHO estimates that 100 million women live with consequences of sexual mutilation.
19.When Girls Go Wild
“Female copulatory vocalization”, the fact that women tend to be much louder during sex and involuntarily moan, has been confusing scientists for a long time.
For a monogamous species it doesn’t make sense to call attention to yourself when mating (and being extremely vulnerable).
In all promiscuous primates have the same female vocalizations, and they are a clear call to attract other males and encourage sperm competition.
Especially considering how it also alerts predators, must have significant value to promiscuous primates.
Despite all this, standard picture of women is still the “coy female”.
Why did human females evolve such large breasts? Size not important for milk production, on the contrary has clear physiological disadvantages (back pain, difficulty running,…).
In chimps and bonobos, sexual organs and butt of female swell up to signal fertility and receptiveness to sex. But studies show that this swelling would be a problem for bipedal walk. So it’s hypothesized that as humans started walking on two legs, the signaling switched to the breasts, and just like in bonobos, the swelling is constant to show essentially constant sexual receptiveness.
Also why is there a female orgasm? Originally humans were thought to be the only animal with female orgasm, which fir nicely in the narrative of pair-bonding. But recent findings that other primates/animals have female orgasm too, and that the more promiscuous a species the more likely it is to have orgasms, is a huge issue for standard narrative.
Also why multiple orgasms as opposed to male? Could it be to get her ready for more sex with other males and encourage sperm competition?
Female reproductive tract actually very hostile environment for sperm. Gets attacked as antibody. But it can also make “subtle judgements”, assessing the immunological and genetic compatibility of the sperm, and aiding the compatible one.
This is key. There is no “best DNA”, it all depends on compatibility with the female’s, so inviting many males and then having the reproductive tract figure out the most suitable male at a cellular level is a perfect strategy.
Males quick orgasm and recovery period get him our of the way quickly and woman can keep going for more sperm competition.
V. Men are from Africa, Women are from Africa
The standard narrative sees men and women as fundamentally extremely different and inevitable sexual conflict as a consequence. But this inevitability is a lie!
20. On Mona Lisa’s Mind
Experiments in other mammals seem to suggest that female’s sexuality much more malleable/plastic. Male sexuality formed during short periods and then almost fixed, but for females it can change the entire lifetime, also due to social pressures.
Experiment [p. 273]: Men and women were shown all sorts of erotic material, straight and gay, even bonobos mating, while having blood flow to their genitals measured and being asked with a keypad how turned on they are. Men were both predictable and honest. Most blood flow when naked woman was involved, and also indicated that they were turned on. No response in other cases (except same but with men in case of gay men). But women totally different. Blood flow was high with all (!) erotic material. For man-woman scenarios they reported much higher arousal than blood flow suggested, for everything else reported no arousal at all (despite obvious signs).
[q] “Mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person” - Daniel Bergner, reporting on study
[bq] “Could well be that the price of women’s greater erotic flexibility is more difficulty in knowing - and […] accepting - what they’re feeling.”
Pill massively affects woman’s eroticism, and also partner preference. Usually women attracted to smell of men with different immunity to pathogens. But on pill this gets short-circuited. As couple decides to have kids, woman might go off pill and realise she is no longer attracted to this guy. Could be the cause of many failed relationships/marriages. Often think woman no longer has strong libido, but it’s just the wrong guy, nothing wrong with her sex drive.
21. The Pervert’s Lament
Men’s lack of erotic flexibility makes them much more likely to be stuck with abnormal sexual desires (paraphilia). They’re often “set like concrete” once developed during youth.
Also reason why overwhelming majority of pedophiles male. Women can simply adjust their desires to social norms/pressures. Men can’t that easily.
Often the only “proper” solution is. hormone treatment.
Testosterone extremely powerful and particularly abundant from early teens to mid-twenties. Also correlated with boys getting in trouble and even suicide. Maybe a less repressed sex drive could be a better solution.
Studies show that individuals show either a tendency to seek violence or pleasure, rarely both. Same goes for societies at large. Those in which sex/pleasure takes a more central/open role are far less aggressive and involved in fewer wars.
It’s an unavoidable truth that men crave sexual variety and change. Doing exactly the same thing with new partner suddenly feels exciting and new.
[q] “The prerequisite for a good marriage, it seems to me, is the license to be unfaithful.”
- Carl Jung
Most likely explanation for male variety-seeking: “Anti-incest” drive in small/sparse societies and promotion of genetic variety.
[bq] “Monogamy itself seems to drain away a man’s testosterone.”
Living long enough together and only having sex with one woman makes the man consider her almost like a sibling and shuts down his sex drive/attraction. Huge cause of unhappy marriages.
A new lover is one of the most certain ways to increase a man’s testosterone. Low testosterone leads to a lack of energy, passion, and vitality, so increasing it again feels great. Many men mistake this feeling for love.
[bq] “But a hormonal response to novelty isn’t love.”
Common options men see:
Just lie and try not to get caught
Give up on having sex with other people and cure the resulting issue with anti-depressants (which conveniently also kill libido as a side effect)
Serial monogamy: Divorce and start over. Most “honest” and recommended by experts
[q] “Why does society consider it more moral for you to break up marriage, go through a divorce, distrust your children’s lives maybe forever, just to be able to fuck someone with whom the fucking is going to get just as boring as it was with the first person before long?”
- Susan Squire
Women’s options similar:
Pretend to not notice
Have revenge affair
Call in lawyers and destroy family.
All losing options!
22. Confronting the Sky Together
Sex is a huge problem and causes many issues in our society, but only because we take it so serious and have “restricted access” to it.
By insisting on an ideal iambs of monogamous marriage we destroy many otherwise working/healthy marriages and cause long term consequences for children.
[q] “The expectation of lifelong monogamy places an incredible strain on marriage. But our concept of love and marriage has as its foundation not only the expectation of monogamy but the idea that where there’s love, monogamy should be easy and joyful.”
- Dan Savage
Modern polyamorous families might in a way be mimicking the family arrangements that were more common for our forager ancestors.
US swinging culture actually started with fighter pilots and their wives. They had all very close bonds and sexual relations, and there was an understanding that those pilots who would survive would take care of the wives whose husbands wouldn’t.
Traditional marriage is clearly a failing model, yet the slightest suggestion of alternatives is met with ridicule or outcry, even from experts like counselors.
True fidelity means, above all, openness and honesty with your partner.