In 1879, Mark Twain made the following observation: "Of all the forms of intercourse," he said, masturbation "has the least to recommend it. As an amusement, it is too fleeting; as an occupation, it is too wearing; as a public exhibition, there's no money in it." We laugh, as Mr. Twain intended us to, but his humor contained a serious message, as usual. American culture has long been engaged in a costly, brutal war of attrition against the animal appetites underlying human sexuality.
Thirty years earlier, the New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal had declared masturbation public enemy number one, warning: "Neither plague, nor war, nor smallpox, nor a crowd of similar evils, have resulted more disastrously for humanity than the habit of masturbation: it is the destroying element of civilized society."
Children and adults were warned that masturbation was not only sinful, but very dangerous--sure to result in severe health consequences, including blindness, infertility and insanity. Children were subjected to an array of "treatments" meant to dissuade them from this victimless crime--ranging from the barbaric (spiked penis cages, carbolic acid applied to the clitoris) to the comical (intentionally bland foods like Graham crackers and corn flakes were thought to suppress the adolescent male's libido). As late as 1936, Holt's Diseases of Infancy and Childhood, a respected medical school text, recommended surgical removal or cauterization of the clitoris as a cure for masturbation in girls.
While most Americans would now recognize the tragic absurdity of sewing closed a boy's foreskin (without anesthesia) or strapping a little girl's arms to her bedposts to prevent prohibited pleasure, our war on human sexual nature continues unabated. The enemy has morphed from teenagers touching themselves to husbands and wives wandering from the strict confines of married monogamy. Husbands who look at porn and wives who occasionally imagine George Clooney while having sex with their husbands are declared to be "cheating" at this game almost nobody ever seems to win.
A few weeks ago, in a discussion of our book, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, on Andrew Sullivan's blog, a reader declared:
In my eventual marriage, I will insist on monogamy. I don't think I could be that free, sexually, with someone if, in the back of my mind, the possibility existed that they were thinking of someone else.
Monogamy--for this person, and many others--includes not just what their partner does, but what they think as well. Time to get out the penis cages and carbolic acid again!
People (most of whom haven't bothered to read our book) assume we're advocating open marriages and rampant promiscuous rutting in the streets. We're not. It's true we argue the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that no creature on Earth spends as much time fussing over sex as Homo sapiens and that our turbo-charged libido was key to our evolutionary success as a species. When you look at the available evidence, it's clear that human beings' bodies, minds and sexual habits all reflect a rather immodest prehistory. But as we say in our book, even we are unsure what to do with this information--other than write it down and spread the news.
If we advocate anything to readers, it would be a "harm reduction" approach to infidelity in place of the "Just Say No" response responsible for a huge amount of needless suffering. Because of the type of creature we are, non-monogamous tendencies will always be within us; whether and how we act on these tendencies is another matter. A deeper, more informed understanding of where these feelings come from can only help us in choosing an appropriate response to them. Our greatest ambition is to provoke conversations that will lead people to clarify their understanding of their own sexual nature before they sign on to long-term commitments they can't change later without making a mess of their lives.
After reporting from Afghanistan for a week, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow summarized her sense of the war by observing that the mission of establishing a secure national Afghan government "depends on a premise that is romantic and unproven and unlikely." A few seconds later, she concluded, "Wanting it to be so doesn't mean we're capable of making it so."
She could have been talking about happily-ever-after, sexually exclusive, never-tempted-by-another marriage. It's simply not in the cards for our species. To insist upon such unrealistic standards is to create a battleground pre-configured for failure.
The war between the sexes is over. Sex won.
Follow Christopher Ryan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sexatdawn
Dr. Thomas Bradbury: PBS's 'This Emotional Life': Major League Miscommunication
Tabby Biddle: Exclusive Interview with Sheila Kelley, Founder of S Factor
Love, Sex & Relationships - Monogamy is Unnatural & Responsible ...
Non-Monogamy & Infidelity | YourTango
The Last Word On Monogamy, Non-monogamy, Sex at Dawn, Early ...
Evolution: Sex: The Advantage of Sex
In any event, in cultures with patriarchal religions that teach the suppression of normal sexuality and sexual energy, twisted forms erupt. And so this culture has porn, rape, serial killers, sexual unhappiness, unstable families, sad children. Christianity, Judaism and Islam hold that the body is evil, spirit is good, that women are temptresses who lead men into hellfire, that man is godlike, woman is a mere afterthought. The twisted artificial sexuality and obsession with sex of moderns is a product of long repression. Repression fuels obsession.
There remain small cultures on this planet that have escaped domination by patriarchal religious thoughtforms. Men in such cultures would find pornography laughably silly and unerotic. Natural people grow up without being ashamed of their bodies, boys and girls splash naked in the water. Australian aboriginal children know what boys and girls look like. Sexuality in these cultures takes a more natural and egalitarian form, with different forms obviously in different cultures, but always in relationships of affection and goodheartedness. When people are not seen as objects, kindness prevails.
It will only be possible for humans to exult in a healthy wholesome natural sexuality when they have thrown off the yoke of patriarchal fairy-tale religions and repressive governance.
And how in the world does one obtain a shred of reliable "evidence" about sexual practices among the earliest humans? It's speculation at best, filtered through one's own prejudices and preferences.
As a woman I've learned to be extremely suspicious of "evidence" obtained by male scientists regarding what is and is not "natural" for me.
That's very unfair to characterize this person in this way. If we have learned anything related to this topic, it's that human sexuality is the most diverse form of sexuality on the planet. Some people are much more (let's say) exploratory about sex and sexuality, while some are not so much. I'm not going to say that there's not some societal pressure there, but it exists because there were, and still are, people who, for them, sexuality is much more strictly defined. And of course there is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean they're repressed (necessarily). It just means they're comfortable.
Other than that, decent article.
Also....BRILLIANT foundation for a society...marriage.
Let's bet the fate our children's family and future on the human's ability to remain monogamous....GENIUS.
Reality- Tiger and Jesse having sex with other women (to use current examples) did NOT ruin their families in ANY way. The families went on without noticing any issue for a long time.
It was only after they were caught, society judged and shamed them...and the women kicked them out...that the family was destroyed.
So, it's not the act itself that is detrimental to families...it's the expectation.
Society tells men that it's monogamy is natural and easy (only the bad men can't do it) and they believe the lie and repeat the lie. Then they live the lie, learn it's a lie, and then their lying starts...
And women cheat just as much as men, but they cheat with men (who don't want to get caught) and not women who want attention (eg. Tiger's girls) so they rarely get caught.
Would you agree to only eat one meal? Read one book? See one movie for the rest of your life?
No way.
But, let's just keep pretending we are "better"...
I don't disagree with your basic premise, but I think the eat one meal, read one book, or watch one movie analogy is a bit extreme. It's more like - only eat food by one chef, or only watch movies by one director or only read books by one author. I mean unless your partner is a one trick pony, he/she should be able to offer a little bit of variety.
Understanding your partner's needs and desires and not AUTOMATICALLY placing your own selfish insecurity above their needs.
Is there anyone out there so delusional that they believe that their partners would NOT enjoy sex with someone besides them?
Of course they would...or could.
Do you not want your partner to enjoy things?
So, what's the issue?
Insecurity.
Obviously, getting over insecurity (or jealousy...which is rooted in insecurity) is easier said than done.
And different (usually) for each sex, women's insecurity or jealousy tends to be based on fear of losing her man or provider (if you want to go back to animal level) while men's insecurity tends to be one of "territory" (especially in younger men, not wanting women "soiled" by other men) or performance (fear of measuring up against competition).
No easy answers. Throw in a society (for reasons based on a lack of birth control and paternity testing) that moralizes on this issue and makes it the CRUX of love...and no easy answers at all.
To finish the insecurity thought, though....this is the only example where that behavior is tolerated.
If you are insecure about your partner TALKING to other people, you, not they, will be considered the wrong or immorral one.
Talking is at least, if not more, important to intimacy as sex...right?
Personally, there's something beautiful about seeing a couple in their 70's, 80's, or however old who have been married for 50 years or better and still happy. It's a shade of love that isn't found anywhere else in the world. It really is a testament to humans as a species to see such things.
Take another look at that 80 year old couple. Think of all the ups, downs and in betweens they have been through. The dedication and devotion. The patience and practicality. The effort and the empathy. Think about everything it takes to have such a relationship.
Then think about how insignificant in the grand scheme of everything it TRULY is...if that old man visited a "massage" parlor once or twice along the way or that old woman got wild at a bacholerette party one night...compared to the enduring love they have...of which, physical sex is only a small part.
YET...society tells you it's an unforgivable dealbreaker and that this relationship must be thrown away and the kids raised via tag team, all because of this odd, artificial notion.
In some countries, it is still considered unethical for unmarried couples to stay together, while in most western countries, it;s fairly normal.
In end, we have to decide, what is best not for us, but for the society as a whole and the future generations..As far as i have seen society always prevails over the genes ..
But the unanswered question is very big
http://book-marq.blogspot.com