Ch. 3: Sex

Chris OConnor · Sat May 10, 2008 9:36 pm

Please use this thread for discussing "Sex," which happens to be the title of Chapter 3.

tarav · Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:56 pm

I had never heard about the perfect physical dimensions for a woman before reading about it in this chapter! Evidently, a waistline that is 70% of the hip size is the ideal! LOL De Waal is not necessarily convinced that this is a programmed preference. He is bringing up the claim that some evolutionary psychologists have made. So, guys, what do you think?

tarav · Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:08 pm

On p 98 De Waal brings up Bill Clinton and argues that Clinton defined sex too narrowly. This made me remember that poll we had up about determining virginity. It looks like De Waal would not have sided with me on that one. I said you were a virgin until you had intercourse.
An aside: Gotto love those bonobos!!
p.s. I looked for two emoticons humping, but had no luck!

Ophelia · Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:08 pm

There is a lot of wisdom in this book-- not only in the third chapter.
There is a lot of honesty, and a warm interest in apes, bonobos and humans which enables the author to tell the truth simply, as he sees it, and with great clarity. In the pages I am going to quote, some half- formed ideas had been there, in the back of my mind, and I simply never made the connections.

It seems that somehow many things start with the drama of infanticide.
De Waal describes an example of langur male monkeys killing the young (p 102 in my book) and says it happened for humans too, and in both cases the males would try to kill the young and the women would try to defend them.
De waal refers to anthropologist Sarah Hrdy, who "drew attention to examamples of infanticides." She theorizes about human defences, one of which is to confuse paternity.
Among apes, "by accepting the advances of many males, a female can buffer herself against infanticide because none of her mates can discard the possibility that the infant is his. In other words, it pays to sleep around."

I find De Waal 's theory about "fatherly assistance", which developed in humans but not in apes (thus giving us an edge!) fascinating.
The idea is that human males are only willing to look after and work for (as well as not kill) infants that are biologically theirs. (It really looks like everybody could think of that one for themselves, but I was surpised-- why hadn't I thought that up for myself before?:eek:).
So, the choice that humans made is the contrary of the one made by bonobo females.


	Quote: The nuclear family is the hallmark of human social evolution. Given the exclusvity of our sexual contacts, we've opted for the opposite of the bonobo plan by actually enhancing a male's ability to tell which offspring are his.

p 107.


	Quote: Our ancestors needed cooperative males who posed no threat to females and their young and who were ready to lend their mates a hand.

p 109.
And the consequence: the never-ending fight to "tame female sexuality."


	Quote: Since males are willing to help out only with young likely to be theirs, the taming of female sexuality became their constant struggle.

p 110.

And one good argument, alas, in support of all this, p 103:


	Quote: It's well established, for example, that children are more at risk of abuse by stepfathers than biological fathers

p 103.
In the case of girls sexually abused by the male in the family, "father" means, very often, stepfather. The explanation I had (as far as one can explain such behaviour) was that the stepfather had arrived late in the life of the child, and had not bonded with the child as a baby, and this must be true too.
But the explanation going back to our ancestors-- that the male would only look after biological offspring and that he would often prey on other offspring makes a lot of sense to me.

Now, I am sure there must be dozens of pages and ideas that are cheerful and uplifting and that I just didn't spot. This is where Saffron must come in... :smile:

I did see the pages about the sexuality of bonobos and De Waal's thesis that it makes them peaceful and contented... they seem to be sweet creatures... oh, and the females rule --wisely, of course, so that both sexes lead happy lives!

Ophelia · Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:19 pm

DNA tests.
When DNA tests became an easy thing to do, some years ago, I wondered how this would affect society and whether children would be disowned. Would men suddenly have doubts, or discover incriminating letters, and have the children tested? Somehow I never heard about it, so i imagined some solution had been found.
When I read De Waal mentioning it, I checked what the law in France was, and here is the reason why nothing much has changed.
You cannot legally have your own DNA tests made in France-- people still do them via the internet, but the results cannot be produced in court. The only tests that are accepted are those that are ordered by a judge.
Also, the law seems to have remained just what it was before: a man, whether married or not, has six months to legally accept or refuse a child, and after that no further procedures can be started.


	Quote: Blood and DNA tests conducted in Western hospitals suggest that about one in fifty children is not sired by the fathers of record. In some studies, the mismatch is considerably greater.

p 110.

So, De Waal confirms my feeling that DNA tests were potential cause for trouble.
I imagine other countries must have felt the same need as France- though without making DNA tests illegal-- to limit the trouble.
The law is explained as safeguarding the interests of children, who cannot be disinherited or denied an allowance after they are six months old.
I'm sure law makers meant just that, looking after children, and I note it is interesting that in this case since the legislator had to make a choice the right of the child has been given precedence over the right of the adult male-- who is the one who largely dominates society and makes the laws.
This looks fair to me, since the man has a six month window to make choices at the beginning.
Something tells me though that the welfare of the child was not all the legislator had in mind. Which society could allow men to legally stop providing care for their children on the ground that they're not biologically theirs, and how would our societies work if inheritance was routinely contested through DNA tests?

Forum rules

Ch. 3: Sex Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!