Sexy Beasts

Because it was recommended by a mysterious anonymous commenter, and because it was a link to the Seed Magazine site, and because I continuously grapple with the teachings of evolutionary psychology/biology, I was interested in Eric Michael Johnson's review of the book "Sex at Dawn." 

I have not read the book in question, but the overarching hypothesis seems to be that current human sexuality (essentially, the time and effort human beings devote to sex, while also separating sex from procreation a majority of the time) is the evolutionary result of ancestral "multimale-multifemale mating groups."  It is with this evolutionary sexual foundation, we have (perhaps erroneously) built societies which often stress monogamous, male-female sexual relationships and the avoidance of an amalgam of sexual taboos.  Social constructs dictate with whom, and when, and where, and how we should be having sex--and as Mr. Johnson's review points out with monogamy as a key example such directives are not well followed in today's culture.  I don't think these ideas are so very new, but I'm sure the authors have amply defended and exemplified them.

This is by no means the first time that I've read about or discussed the evolutionary contexts for human sexuality.  I still can't get passed two *little* hang-ups though.  

First: while evolution provides and interesting and often explanatory framework for these discussions, the fact remains that these are theories and cannot be proven.  

Second, even if they could be proven, what has happened in the past has little bearing on what is happening now or will happen in the future: we continue to evolve, and some past adaptations are now obsolete.  I'm not necessarily arguing that our sexual evolutions are obsolete, but human beings have changed in a number of social ways.  For example: although our ancestors scavenged and ate raw meat, society now mandates that we cook our meat before consumption (with a few exceptions).  We used to run around quite naked and hairy.  Now clothes are a "must" and body hair is taboo (to a certain extent, and especially for women).  Evolution is not normative: it does not determine how human beings should or should not behave.  

Finally, I always end up feeling like evolutionary psychology is used as an excused for failing to adhere to cultural norms.  I know that not all cultural standards regarding behavior are defensible.  Nevertheless, I can't condone a pseudo-scientific justification for infidelity.  If infidelity, swinging (as the article mentions) or whatever, is your thing then those expectations should be laid out at the beginning of a potential relationship.  The problem with infidelity is not unfaithfulness in itself, but breaking the spoken or unspoken agreement between two people for exclusivity.  The problem is not that we may be evolutionarily programmed for multiple sexual partners, it is that we continue to willingly enter into monogamous relationships and then find ourselves unable to control whatever primal urges exist for extra-marital/relationship affairs.  Evolutionary background or not, we must remember that being a human being uniquely gives us more control over our biology than any other species.