Are Humans NATURALLY promiscuous?

Post Reply New Topic

There are two ways to approach this question:


1- Biological

Studies of mating behaviors of different primates and comparing it to their anatomical adaptations brought about a very interesting pattern.

The size of the testes compared to body size was considerably larger in species that lived in large groups containing multiple males and females (aka chimps). Species with smaller testes compared to body size lived in small groups containing one adult male and multiple females (along with young males which would not compete in mating (aka Gorillas).

Link to a Snippet page in Google Docs of a book mentioning this study

In between these two extremes the species studied all fell into the pattern to the point where the 'optimal' size of the group and composition could be deduced by simply studying the size of the testes to body size and the average size of the penis to body size.

Humans fell into a category of one male for every three females living in multi-male, multi-female groups approximately no larger than ~40 individuals and around ~20 individuals 'average'.

...a number that matched with archaeological evidence of group composition (size and number of male:females) of early hunter-gatherers (pre-agricultural revolution) and most recent known human ancestor species & cousins (Homo Erectus & Neanderthal).

Females of different mating systems had different adaptations as well. Females from large multimale/multifemale groups developed means of announcing their estrus (aka, enlarged labia in this time, scent glands, changes in color, etc) and tended to be sexually receptive and fertile often. Females of small groups with one dominant male with a harem did not have such adaptations... when they were fertile they only needed to let one male know and the deal was done.

Human females fall into the spectrum ladder of a species that is fertile basically all the time (in comparison to other primates). The human female is primed to breed as often as possible and does not have to signal her fertility very much since she is fertile for the most part of every month.

From this point of view, are humans naturally promiscuous? The answer is 'yes for the most part'. We are biologically set to not be a monogamous mating system. We are set to be able to breed very quickly and constantly in a system where the male competes to have more than one female if possible and the female competes with other females to get the most beneficial male.

2- Cultural

Humans developed pair bonding as a cultural adaption very early in our hunter-gatherer days. Our groups were about 20 individuals on average and there tended to be more females than males in such groups (not always). Pair bonding worked in tandem with our biological mating system...the male would get to spread his genes with more than one female and the female 'secured' the resources of one male for her offspring and had 'child care' and support from the second and third females. Over time, as our population grew the competition for resources made 1 male for 1 female the most energy efficient system...but that did not mean the male still did not try to spread his genes around nor the female from taking a better gene-providing mate while remaining with another male which was a better resource provider.

However, the thing about culture is that it adapts quickly to local environment. Its an adaptation system of its own. Some cultures even today use multiple females for one male as an accepted system. Others accept females having multiple males. In general the majority of us practice monogamy (but still fall to the old urges of getting more somewhere else if we can) because it is more efficient in our current group-living situation. Its all about the economy of the times.

Culturally we are monogamous when it fits our needs...and not when it fits our needs.

I would say people are far easier to control when in the context of communal living because then you can control a group collectively rather than individually, which takes more time and effort. Plus, what technically counts for communal living? A city could surely be defined as an extremely large form of communal living. Plus, people in tribal communal living spaces still live in separate huts and so forth just like we live in different houses and so forth. It just has the illusion of being more communal. Plus, what constitutes as the western world? When you say the western world does not like so and so? Who are you referring to? It seems like a slightly abstract phrase.

One day the promiscuous will have all the rights.

I don't think it's that prevalent. In certain populations it is and you see the correlation with various stds in those groups. but mainstream, nah. Mostly the mainstream is about limiting partners right now. There's been a backlash against it and people opting for partnerships and monogamy more and more.

I reject the entire notion of "natural human behavior" verses "culture."

Humans are one of the most adaptable primates on Earth, and we are NATURALLY programmed by our genetics to be able to respond to our environment and change our behavior accordingly; THEREFORE, "culturally-programmed behavior" is, in fact, NATURAL behavior.

Culture = "nature." Furthermore, I reiterate my point that different individuals may have varying levels of the ability to pair-bond based on their personal neurology, so there is no one mating strategy that ALL humans naturally "prefer." It would appear to be common sense that the human who can readjust their mating behavior to the most advantageous given their circumstances would have the BEST chance of passing on their genes.



I agree with everything you have written.

Suggesting all humans are capable of is being lustful and out of control sexually is a bit of an insult.

I find many generalizations about human behavior to be insulting.

Generalizations can be insulting but I make them all the time.

Meanwhile, in North America, the Sioux (one of our major hunter-gatherer tribes) were polygamous:

http://www.ecclesbourne.derbyshire.sch. ... ulture.pdf

Exactly. I do not know if you were agreeing with me or disagreeing but I agree with what you have said. Culture is a by-product of our nature and thus the two cannot be separated. It is rather irritating when people say 'it is not natural, it is cultural conditioning' when cultural conditioning is entirely natural and we rely on it in order to acquire our basic values, needs and wants. As you say, we are all individuals with different needs and many of us will love to have one partner, such as myself, because I really like the security of it while others will be okay with sleeping around. We need to move beyond seeing things in terms of what is natural and unnatural. It is a semantic paradigm that no longer makes sense anymore. Plastic is natural to some extent since it is made out of natural materials and human beings have made it and since we are part of nature, it is the manifestation of a natural drive.
As you say, which is an excellent point, is the fact as a species we are incredibly versatile. We are seriously like some sort of plasticine. Animals seem to have a need for a certain culture and will create a culture based on this need but human beings it seems are not like this. If you put a child in an aggressive god-hating society, it will turn out to be an aggressive atheist, if you put it into a passive god-loving society, it will end up a passive child that reads the bible every night.

I also find it exceptionally irritating that people think that somehow tribal societies are more 'natural' than us because they have either been around longer or are less technologically advanced. People will say 'but look this tribe is polygamous, therefore it is NATURAL to be polygamous' or 'look at this tribe, they don't use mobile phones, therefore it is NATURAL not to use mobile phones'. Tribes are not free from cultural conditioning and are equally victims to tradition, social programming and ritual. Maybe even more so since they are in a culture that heavily relies on traditional practices that are not heavily questioned by outside influences. Many tribes practices genital mutilation, however to say that that is natural is speculation. Also, the fact that something is culturally conditioned like 'monogamy' does not instantly mean its negative. I have probably been conditioned to wear clothes and use a knife and fork when I eat but at the end of the day, these things help me live and are convenient.

I don't think you can generalize about such tribes. While some tribes are generally polygamous, which is what you are saying, even Chris Ryan states that there are few in polygamous tribes who end up pair bonding because they enjoy each others company and will cook with one another, live with one another and sleep with one another. Also, just because a tribe does it does not somehow mean it is a better life-style. Tribes do not equal natural.

Yes the 'western world' is an abstract phrase but you can take it to mean the USA, Europe, Japan, etc and now China perhaps.

When I say smaller units are more controllable I mean that the more divided a large mass of people are (a society) the easier it is for those ruling to control it. If instead of small family units we had wider communes of families then those are bigger units of people within the society and the risk of sub groups forming within are higher than if we are all made up of two parent families.

Yes, I agree that by division you can control people more easily but you can also control people more easily when they are together in a community since if they are together geographically it is easier to ideologically control them as opposed to people living individualistically in which case it is difficult to gage whether social control is having much effect. It is an interesting topic though especially since many communes have been seen by the authorities to pose a threat to the social order of things. The Charles Manson family lived as a commune and were deemed by the authorities to be psychotic and a threat to American values and Waco was a commune that was obviously perceived as enough of a threat by the government establishment that it was gotten 'rid of' in the most horrendous manner. So there clearly is a link between rebellion and communes but then it probably depends on the commune. Some communes will be very controlling and will have more social control than those in normal society living in a more divided fashion while others will be more free.

Oh, I agree with you.

.

Exactly.

.

Precisely. Our ability to adapt to our external surroundings has allowed humans to live in just about every major climate zone on Earth.

It is scary to think how susceptible we are to cultural conditioning though and how easily we can be changed in relation to the circumstance in which we find ourselves. Although I utterly despise people who are racists, homophobic and so forth, there is always a tiny bit of me that thinks 'Perhaps if I had had exactly the same upbringing, groups of friends and everything that has happened to him happened to me, except we had different genetic makeup, I would be thinking the same thing.' Our condition is highly paradoxical since it implies that we can become whatever we wish and almost 'create our own reality' (although I hate that phrase) and yet it also implies a lack of control that makes you think you could become an aggressive murderer if you were just given the right social programming.

Joining a free love commune is a freedom of choice. If you prefer a traditional marriage then don't join the free love commune. However there are people that want to join the commune but they want to bring their wives to the commune and tell everyone that their wives are off limits. They want all the benefits of communal living but none of the sacrifices. Next more and more property becomes off limits to the commune and then the result it is no longer a commune but rather a bastion of personal property rights between the rich and the poor.

On the other hand no one is forced to remain in the commune. If a couple desires to leave to leave the commune and start a traditional marriage they can cash in their chips and leave the commune with a nice nest egg but with no further support from the commune.

Although free love is allowed members of the commune are not allowed to have sex with strangers. Sex with members outside of the commune is an act of adultery and is punishable by a decree of divorce from the commune because sex with strangers could introduce diseases into the commune. Again a nest egg is provided for divorced members that is equal to his share in the commune but with no further support.

Sex with children is off limits. Children must be of an age of consent so they can decide for themselves whether they want a traditional marriage or a communal marriage. Violators are expelled from the commune and the commune itself can be dissolved if this is what it takes to protect children.

Those who want to cherry pick young lovers are encouraged to seek out a traditional marriage where they can marry the youngest most beautiful lover possible. The commune consists of adult lovers of all ages and everyone is entitled to be loved equally regardless of age. However members of the commune are required to do everything in their power to attract their lovers. Age because it is no fault of your own can be overlooked but being overweight because of your gluttony could cause you to be passed up. Thus your best personal appearance must be maintained as well as the development of musical talent. Good deeds are not overlooked because in a commune true love is not based on superficial appearances.

Is this the beginning of a neo-hippie manifesto waiting to be published?