I read a book, and it kind of fucked me up.
The name of this book is Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. You can find it at your local library by clicking here.
The book fucked me up for two reasons:
-the book argues that humans are innately polyamorous ("multimale-multifemale mating"), and that thesis is pretty solidly grounded in "evidence" and "logical argumentation"
-I read the book the week before I was slated to be married
OH SHIT, TIME FOR A CRISIS.
Actually, I didn't really have a crisis. Beez and I had already confronted a lot of these questions, so it wasn't very difficult to reconcile the new information with our marriage project. After all, we have always had complete openness about our crushes on other people (often to the bewilderment of our family and friends). We talk about them, we gently tease each other about them, and sometimes -- sometimes! -- we fight about them. But whatever the mood, we communicate, and do our best to acknowledge the fact that extramarital crushes have nothing to do with our feelings for each other (i.e. a crush on someone else doesn't subtract anything from our relationship, it's not a symptom of some deeper problem between us, it's not some midlife crisis and no one needs to buy a goddammed sportscar).
As a wise man once told me, "I think there are things in life that make you queasy, and that's okay."
BUT STILL, even though we had identified and hashed out these issues on an individual level, there was something supremely terrifying about learning about ingrained non-monogamy on a species level: there is a relationship-arsonist programmed into my genes, and ain't no escapin' that. Reading the book made me feel two parts manic with the joy of discovery, and one part shitting-myself-in-fear.
At the end of the day, I have no answers, other than the fact that I love mah husband with every fiber in my body.
----
Every time I encounter a new theory, I put it through the Bullshit Test. Does it make sense on its surface? Or are there major problems, which may or may not be resolvable with further evidence?
For example, I read a book on marriage last year, which decidedly did NOT pass the test. For Better: The Science of a Happy Marriage opened by summarizing some really fascinating science on testicle-to-body-size ratios, and how that relates to promiscuity in apes and humans. She reasons that since humans' ratio falls somewhere between chimps (=resident sluts) and gorillas (=polygynous), humans' sluttery must fall somewhere between the two (with monogamy being the obvious halfway point between senseless whoredom and brutish polygyny?). She concludes by saying,
"The size of human testicles seems to suggest that while multiple couplings remain an option, humans are nonetheless well suited to long-term partnerships."
Wait, what? All that nuanced and interesting science, and you just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it? "These things are complicated! Therefore, lifelong monogamy!"
Then, of course, she goes off on this bullshit tangent about PRARIE VOLES, as if some random rodent could shed more light on the human experience than our closest ape cousins? COME ON, LADY, YOU'RE KILLING ME.
Sex at Dawn, on the other hand, weighs the science more evenly. Ryan and Jetha make some incredibly obvious assertions, like: if monogamy has been the natural state of affairs for four million years (as Owen Lovejoy argues), why do we, as a species, struggle with it so much? Why, if monogamy comes naturally to us, do we have any need to mandate it through force all around the world (e.g., stoning for adulterers, clitoridectomies to quell female desire, harsh divorce laws that rip children and property away from cheating partners, etc. etc.)?
If people still cheat in spite of the threat of DEATH BY STONING, that suggests a pretty strong innate drive, wouldntcha say?
Here's my theory: If we were meant to be lifelong monogamites, our brains would be designed differently. We would meet that special someone, oxytocin would pour into our brains and permanently re-wire our desire, and we would never be attracted to anyone else ever again. Presto: happily ever after.
----
Sex at Dawn lays out mountains of evidence to support its thesis, and it's fairly compelling. But the book wasn't written to argue for any specific arrangement/outlet for our polyamorous hearts, only to argue that they evolved for a reason (i.e. social cohesion). Extramarital crushes are not the result of some character defect or a moral shortcoming: they're an inextricable part of our biology.
That much, I suppose, is revolutionary.
The book, I should say, does not give you license to be an asshole. In other words, "One can choose what to do, but not what to want." This book excuses only your desire, but any action you take is yours to answer for. Deceiving one's partner is always, ALWAYS a dick move. Don't do it. Period.
----
At the end of the day, this is the question I keep coming back to:
While our primate brains have evolved for millenia under the pressure of a hunter-gatherer social structure, the fact remains that we do live in a post-agricultural society, and we have been enculturated into a world where monogamy is king. Time and resources exist in limited quantities. Jealousy is an innate emotion, and can be a hugely destructive force (although, in my experience, can be tamed through loving practice).
The real world may either be an insurmountable wall, or maybe it's just a half-marathon that you need to train for. I DON'T KNOW. Maybe I will never know. And that is okay.
So how do you square your biology with the world around you? The book barely attempts to answer that question (and some of its attempts regress into idiot sexist assumptions -- men just want emotionless banging?). But the purpose of the book is not to advise, just to illuminate a much-ignored facet of our biology.
It's a choose-your-own-adventure book, I guess is what I'm saying.
The questions are for you to answer for yourselves: how much do you bend to the whims of your biology, and how much do you make an effort to channel/shape/squelch it? How much squelching is realistic or healthy? When your essential biological drives don't match up perfectly to the world around you, how do you negotiate internal and external realities to find something approximating happiness?
In the end, i could come up with no answers, other than:
-be honest
-create a safe space in which honesty flourishes (i.e., when you feel jealous, ask for what you need - i.e. hugs - instead of attacking)
-foster security by consciously investing in your partner (hint: more hugs)
-humans probably have needs that are diametrically opposed (stability vs. novelty: we crave them both), and everyone just needs to find the balance that works for themselves
That's it. That's all I know.
Well, also this: our relationship has been aided immeasurably through this kind of honesty (filtered, as always, through solid communication techniques). We trust each other more, and our connection is deeper and more meaningful. It will probably be good for you too.
----
Read the book, bitches. Only by uncovering and understanding your basic drives can you make informed decisions about how to channel them.
Also, the book has charts about wieners!
