Reply to comment

So in my usual habit in classroom discussions I not only managed to reveal myself as wholly inarticulate, but also completely and utterly embarrass myself (and potentially others), so I would like to take this opportunity to re-hash what I meant to say as opposed to what actually came out.

It cannot be denied that the ultimate goal of sex is reproduction. This does not mean, however, that the sex act itself could not be co-opted into other services or goals other than merely making babies. While any discussion of evolutionary psychology finds itself subject to the criticism that any reason can be read into a structure, I personally find it interesting to consider several explanations for why we are the way we are, and maybe someone in this class hadn’t considered this view.

That human sex isn’t just about reproduction can be inferred from several instances of biology. The human female, unlike most other mammals, can engage in sex whenever she wishes. The maintenance of such receptivity and the subsequent increase in the production masculine genetic material all have a cost, and parsimony argues that this surplus would not exist without reason. Furthermore, some of our primate relatives engage in “social sex” akin to social grooming. In bonobo society, sex “is part and parcel of social relations…” (1) The author goes on to point out the disjoint between sex and reproduction in bonobos, but also in our own species as well. (It is also worth noting that bonobos are (as far as I know) the only apes who have produced an individual who developed verbal behavior without being explicitly taught – Kanzi.) Bonobos, close relatives of chimpanzees, only split away from the proto-humans 8 million years ago (1), meaning that it is conceivable that our basic social mores may mirror each other.

Another nail in the coffin for the “sex is only for making babies” argument (to me at least) is the highly contentious female orgasm. As scientists continue to research the minutiae of reproduction, we find that women play a more profound role in selecting “who gets in” to her ovum. In his controversial and frequently cited book Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex, Robin Baker suggests that a woman can subconsciously alter her fertility to either aid or discourage certain spermatozoa from making the mark. As per the female orgasm, Baker argues that not only can a man taking the time and effort to bring his partner to orgasm be seen as him rehearsing the assertion that he has the capacity to provide resources for his mate (both the physical vigor and the “consideration”), but that a woman can time her orgasm so as to alter the potential of insemination (2). In making it a woman’s choice (to some degree), the elective female orgasm reintroduces a social component in that lovers who choose to take the time to “bring her to fruition” may be showing a deeper social commitment, and that a woman can conceivably have sex for a reason other than simple reproduction.

1. “Bonobo Sex and Society: The behavior of a close relative challenges assumptions about male supremacy in human evolution” by Frans de Waal

http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html

2. Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex Robin Baker