R. Robin Baker's _Sperm Wars_ is a popular science book that explains why humans have such confusing sex lives.
Why do humans engage in bisexuality, orgies, prostitution, rape, adultery, orgasms, private masturbation (but public condemnation of masturbation), and marriage?
Because human sexual instincts evolved for sperm war.
Sperm war is the struggle between competing sperm from different men who mate with the same woman. Each insemination deploys an army of sperm with specialized functions and several days' of effective life span. Sperm serve different roles at different points in their brief lives. Some sperm fight; other sperm seek eggs; still others try to block the progress of enemies.
The female's vaginal secretions have microscopic channels that serve as a battlefield. Each man's attacker sperm will chemically identify enemy sperm and attempt to destroy them. Each man's egg-seeker sperm will attempt to race to the egg. Each man's blocker sperm will simply try to hang about as obstacles.
Take the example of a woman who has sex several times a day with a long-term mate. His ejaculation patterns will adjust to deploy the best combination of specialized sperm into the battlefield of her reproductive system. If this woman is inseminated once by some other man, the long-term mate's sperm will dominate the battlefield by virtue of superior numbers.
Conversely, if a woman has a long-term husband but takes a three-day vacation to visit an attentive boyfriend, the boyfriend can similarly deploy enough sperm to dominate the battlefield. On returning home, the woman can copulate with her husband in order to fool him into thinking that he is the father of her children. When Baker wrote the book in 1996, she estimated that 10% of children born to British husbands had been fathered by other men. The numbers are almost certainly higher now.
The most important theme of the book is the biological usefulness of infidelity.
It is not enough for humans to have multiple sex partners. The humans who have multiple sex partners openly gain no reproductive advantage. However, the humans who can have multiple sex partners but prevent their partners from discovering each other have won the game of evolution. These fortunate libertines have the best chances of reproducing. The females have access to the monetary resources of long-term mates and the superior genetic contributions of short-term mates. The males have the opportunity to impregnate multiple females, most of whom cannot drain their monetary resources. Adultery is particularly advantageous when the majority of humans are not skillful enough to do it.
Humans commit adultery because many of our ancestors who did so had more viable children than people who did not. Substitute almost any practice (e.g. rape, murder of step-children, orgies, bisexuality, prostitution, etc.) for "adultery" and the previous sentence is still true (according to Baker). Homosexuality is an exception; while a bisexual minority has a reproductive advantage, homosexuals do not.
Bisexuality is a favorable adaptation if it is rare in a community.
The bisexual gains more experience with seduction skills, human psychology, and the subterfuge required to gain sexual access to a large number of mates. Thus a small bisexual minority in a large, mostly heterosexual community will enjoy disproportionate reproductive success by means of serial adultery, rape, etc. However, if a large minority or the majority of a community adopts bisexuality, no one has any reproductive advantage over anyone else, and the community becomes more diseased and less capable of raising children.
Both male and female masturbation have profound impacts on fertility.
In the male case, masturbation to ejaculation changes sperm characteristics in the next ejaculation. Thus a male who is attempting to impregnate seven different females on seven different nights of the week can make his sperm more likely to fertilize eggs if he masturbates at the correct hour. In the female case, increased masturbation and spontaneous orgasms can make her more fertile to partners that appear to be physically stronger, while retaining relationships with weaker partners.
The instinct to perform oral sex occurs in many animal species because it tends to improve the chance of having viable children.
Oral sex provides rudimentary physiological knowledge. A human who initiates oral sex on a recently unfaithful mate has a chance to detect the infidelity. Likewise, some diseases and advanced age can produce warning signals detectable by oral sex, forestalling mating with partners that are not likely to be reproductively healthy.
More primitive animals, such as lions, deal with infidelity in a straightforward manner.
When one male lion has a harem of females and another male lion has no mate, the male lions must fight to the death. If the challenger wins, he kills all the lion cubs before mating with the females. Lions do not conceal infidelity. Humans have evolved to conceal infidelity. Males stupidly believe that other men's offspring are their own. However, when humans discover true biological identities, they often revert to the pragmatism practiced by lions. Stepfathers and stepmothers abuse stepchildren at much higher rates than their own biological offspring. Women have evolved to conceal their fertile periods not only from men, but from themselves.
The human female reproductive system is an environment evolved to serve as a battleground for competing armies of sperm.
There would be no reason for reproductive systems to go through these elaborate battles if animals were naturally monogamous. The most fundamental mechanisms of human reproduction indicate that human bodies are evolved for infidelity and promiscuity. Baker was writing in 1996, before polyamory, orgies, "serial monogamy," and "baby daddies" were so common as to be banal. However, during the past 13 years, Western societies have embraced sexual promiscuity to an extent unparalleled in Baker's book. The story of sexual liberation has been a story of the triumph of instincts over inhibitions.
See also:
Human sperm competition: ejaculate adjustment by males and the function of masturbation
Animal Behaviour, Volume 46, Issue 5, November 1993, Pages 861-885
R. Robin Baker, Mark A. Bellis
Human sperm competition: ejaculate manipulation by females and a function for the female orgasm
Animal Behaviour, Volume 46, Issue 5, November 1993, Pages 887-909
R. Robin Baker, Mark A. Bellis
How shocked did I feel when I read this book about the centrality of infidelity to human sexual instincts?
formosanSep 9, 2009 8:50 AM
http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=12350
Give Toyama Koichi one spiteful, malicious vote!
As a half-baked, comedic kind of authority, I don't mind lending a hand in this situation. (Bakemonogatari, Ep. 8)
I'm going to go and ignore most of what you've said... - Mawootad
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
It is not enough for humans to have multiple sex partners. The humans who have multiple sex partners openly gain no reproductive advantage.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Care to explain why?
Also, it sounds very Lamarckian, all that. "Humans commit adultery because many of our ancestors who did so had more viable children than people who did not" in particular.
Humans commit adultery because many of our ancestors who did so had more viable children than people who did not. Substitute almost any practice (e.g. rape, murder of step-children, orgies, bisexuality, prostitution, etc.) for "adultery" and the previous sentence is still true (according to Baker). Homosexuality is an exception; while a bisexual minority has a reproductive advantage, homosexuals do not.
I feel this is completely wrong, back in the days (and in current times too), adultery was committed in order to have high psychological impact (and just for the mere fun of it).
It is not enough for humans to have multiple sex partners. The humans who have multiple sex partners openly gain no reproductive advantage.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Care to explain why?
It's an oversimplified summary of a 300+ page book. If you want a good explanation, read the book.
Briefly, humans who know their partners have other partners will adjust their behaviors.
ladyxzeus said: tl;dr
That means you missed the joke at the end. Your loss.
Chavez said:
Humans commit adultery because...
I feel this is completely wrong, back in the days (and in current times too), adultery was committed in order to have high psychological impact (and just for the mere fun of it).
I'm summarizing Baker's book, which was more than 300 pages long. Yes, I oversimplified, and yes Baker is not above criticism. But if you feel she's wrong, read the book. Other critics have called her overly reductionistic, and you would probably agree with that, judging from your insight regarding motivations for adultery. Even though you might end up disagreeing with her, I think you'll agree that her book is fascinating, if only for the effort it takes to rebut it.
Sukunai said: R. Robin Baker is clearly a fucking idiot...
Then it's too bad she's got more fame and influence than you are likely to get in your entire life.
This is the problem with society. All the people who know what's best, like Sukunai, are too busy complaining, and all the idiots are too busy getting tenure and publishing papers...
CDRW said: Wait a second, what happened to my posts? At least one of them was completely on topic.
If you posted several times in one thread without waiting a while between, the moderators may have removed some of the posts. Recently I got a PM from a mod that I was unnecessarily inflating my post count. Now I try to summarize several responses into one post. I don't know, however, whether there was a mod involved, or if this was a technical glitch in the software.
formosanSep 8, 2009 8:08 PM
http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=12350
Give Toyama Koichi one spiteful, malicious vote!
As a half-baked, comedic kind of authority, I don't mind lending a hand in this situation. (Bakemonogatari, Ep. 8)
I'm going to go and ignore most of what you've said... - Mawootad
She covered the topic of adultery realistically but the promotion of it is just wrong. Fidelity of a couple is one thing that leads to a good marriage and this aspect leads to other things like trust etc. Deception is the worst form in any type of relationship. If the summary of the infedility topic is true in essence then it is wrong. Facts, yes but should have covered it more leniently, not as if she is promoting that aspect.
Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny- Lao-Tze.
See also:
Human sperm competition: ejaculate adjustment by males and the function of masturbation
Human sperm competition: ejaculate manipulation by females and a function for the female orgasm
See also:
Stephen Jay Gould said it better than I could ever hope to, so I'm not going to even bother paraphrasing.
Stephen Jay Gould said: Evolutionary psychology could, in my view, become a fruitful science by replacing its current penchant for narrow, and often barren, speculation with respect for the pluralistic range of available alternatives that are just as evolutionary in status, more probable in actual occurrence, and not limited to the blinkered view that evolutionary explanations must identify adaptation produced by natural selection.
That pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.
the thing about early man and adultery. Back in ye olde days really before man was even building cities but living in little huts and caves. women had no rights. There for leaders and stronger men would have multiple women to spread his seed too. (which makes sense. A man can go on giving kids to fertile women. But a woman once pregnant must carry the child to term. so in the time the baby is growing in that woman. The male can impregnating others. Seems a bit sick now. But back in ancient times there were very few humans and high infant mortality.
the Romans also enjoyed massive orgies in the bath houses and such.
Likewise for males masturbation and sex is good for the body. Removes old sperm andcarcinogens from the prostate. (although there are some conflicting studies on this. One says its better and one says its worse.)
Well, personally, I think sex and monogamy differs on everybody's own nature and surroundings. Sperms are one of the factors that affect a person's sexual nature but there are a lot of other factors to be taken into consideration.
The factors usually include where you live, your culture, your parents, influence of friends, your exposure to porn and sex. Of course these aren't the only factors, it could go on and on for a long time.
But the evolutionary cause of humans' complicated love lives...I'm a little doubtful that its the 'evolutionary' cause.
Killy_Zouichi said: She covered the topic of adultery realistically but the promotion of it is just wrong. Fidelity of a couple is one thing that leads to a good marriage and this aspect leads to other things like trust etc. Deception is the worst form in any type of relationship. If the summary of the infedility topic is true in essence then it is wrong. Facts, yes but should have covered it more leniently, not as if she is promoting that aspect.
I take it by "she" you mean R.R.Baker, the female scientist who wrote the book ... yes I do think she was celebrating infidelity.
Frankly, this was a book written by a scientist who had worked very hard for a long time and wanted to cash in. She knew darn well that taking a confident, Dawkins-like, reductionist tone would get her the most money.
Now, at the same time, I think she believed every word she wrote. But yes, she was excessively confident in her assumptions. On a personal note, I interpreted her writing style as a celebration of sexual assertiveness, especially female infidelity. I suspect she had a big grudge against Christian morality.
MWoT 2
Malapharos said: Stephen Jay Gould said it better than I could ever hope to, so I'm not going to even bother paraphrasing.
Stephen Jay Gould said: Evolutionary psychology could, in my view, become a fruitful science by replacing its current penchant for narrow, and often barren, speculation with respect for the pluralistic range of available alternatives that are just as evolutionary in status, more probable in actual occurrence, and not limited to the blinkered view that evolutionary explanations must identify adaptation produced by natural selection.
That pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.
Gould makes a good point here. Evolution-theorists tend to be even more strident and dogmatic than young-earth creationists. This is relevant to Chavez's earlier point.
Chavez said:
Humans commit adultery because many of our ancestors who did so had more viable children than people who did not. Substitute almost any practice (e.g. rape, murder of step-children, orgies, bisexuality, prostitution, etc.) for "adultery" and the previous sentence is still true (according to Baker). Homosexuality is an exception; while a bisexual minority has a reproductive advantage, homosexuals do not.
I feel this is completely wrong, back in the days (and in current times too), adultery was committed in order to have high psychological impact (and just for the mere fun of it).
Chavez (or anyone who cared to argue on his side) could start from a radically different axiom than Baker. Chavez could argue, "Humans do things for Skinnerian, psychological reasons, not genetic reasons."
If the two sides of the discussion were so opposed, debate would be impossible due to lack of common ground. It would then be more productive to find an evolution expert who would be considerably more moderate than Baker and try to find common ground before deciding on what questions could be debated.
MWoT3
wayne101 said: Well, personally, I think sex and monogamy differs on everybody's own nature and surroundings. Sperms are one of the factors that affect a person's sexual nature but there are a lot of other factors to be taken into consideration.
The factors usually include where you live, your culture, your parents, influence of friends, your exposure to porn and sex. Of course these aren't the only factors, it could go on and on for a long time.
But the evolutionary cause of humans' complicated love lives...I'm a little doubtful that its the 'evolutionary' cause.
Yes, implicit in Baker's career is the assumption that her field is the most important, most explanatory part of science. Dawkins frequently falls into the same rut.
I personally am very much opposed to Baker's axioms. However, I think she has revealed several important empirical facts that I would have otherwise never noticed. I hope that more thinkers take an interest in the issues - whether they support or rebut Baker, the effort is IMHO worthwhile.
Wait, has the link to the most important part of the post been moved? I had thought that I tested the img tags in the original post and that they worked. Is sankaku blocked as an image host?
Q:
How shocked did I feel when I read this book about the centrality of infidelity to human sexual instincts?
http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=12350
Give Toyama Koichi one spiteful, malicious vote!
As a half-baked, comedic kind of authority, I don't mind lending a hand in this situation. (Bakemonogatari, Ep. 8)
I'm going to go and ignore most of what you've said... - Mawootad
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.