There are plenty of studies out there on human sexuality that seem to assume that evolution hasn’t quite caught up with all our modern sexual tinkering, seeing as how they start off assuming all sex, and all our sex drives, stem only from a fundamentally a reproductive urge (this one, which that claims that women who are approaching menopause become “more willing to engage in a variety of sexual activities to capitalize on their remaining childbearing years” is what spurred my thoughts today) There are points where this makes sense–genetically-driven instinct won’t catch on to the advent of The Pill for a few millenia to come. But other purposes for sex, and forms of non-reproductively oriented sex, have been around for more than enough time.
Queer sex, oral, manual and anal sex are OLD. Judging from our closest living relatives, all those ways of fucking are older than we are as a species. Our hind brains may not have picked up on condoms yet, but ‘I don’t want to get pregnant, so how about you go down on me instead?’ is older than time.
And why should all sex be driven by reproduction? Humans do, and probably always have, used sex for lots of other things–for fun, to strengthen relationships, to ease tensions (and did I mention for fun?). We’re social creatures, and our gene’s survival depends not only on our ability to churn out babies, but on our ability to gain the love and support of others. With fucking. Or sharing food or whatever. But fucking is free.
I’m not an expert in human sexuality, so I’m curious: is there any evidence that having more not-PIV-sex is strongly correlated to having more PIV sex and higher pregnancy rates? If there’s not, wouldn’t it be important to distinguish between sex-in-general, which may or mat not include PIV sex, and sex that’s actually able to lead to pregnancy, when you’re doing research on sexuality and reproduction? Because it’s not a good idea to assume that when you ask someone about how often they have sex, or how intense their sexual fantasies are, that their personal definition of sex is all missionary, all the time.
Yaaay, bonding.
Comment by KC — July 31, 2010 @ 7:22 am
[...] at An Inordinate Fondness for Beetles blogs about recreational sex as a survival strategy: There are plenty of studies out there on human sexuality that seem to assume that evolution [...]
Pingback by Weekend links « C6-H12-O6 — July 31, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
I dunno, but I say we start a study of our own. Creatively, and with many reps.
Comment by Jac — August 1, 2010 @ 7:34 am
(Here from Feministe.)
The fact that female humans and bonobos are interested in sex even at times when they’re not fertile, while females of other species are only interested in intercorse during their estrus time, definitely suggests that sex has another purpose* beyond reproduction for some of us primates.
*Where by purpose, I mean “confers some sort of benefit that allows it to be statistically selected for”, not “we were designed to like sex for some divine reason”.
Comment by Wednesday — August 1, 2010 @ 11:48 am
Thanks for stopping by, Wednesday! That’s a good point–if there is selection pressure in favor of having a sex drive when you’re not fertile, I’d assume that it’s because sex is doing you some good beyond reproduction.
Of course, there doesn’t have to be an evolutionary benefit to recreational sex. I’m certainly not saying we need an excuse, or that things that are evolutionarily favored are morally or socially better. Just that scientist should think twice before assuming all sexuality is about making babies, or thinking of all recreational sex as failed or thwarted procreation. Not that you implied otherwise. I just had a thought bubble, and realized I didn’t say it in the main post.
/end ramble.
Comment by Ethan — August 1, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
This post is forever going to remind me of frantic post-quesadilla packing. <333 And lab kegs. Also, Jac +1.
Comment by Samia — August 1, 2010 @ 2:25 pm
I’m not an expert in human sexuality, so I’m curious: is there any evidence that having more not-PIV-sex is strongly correlated to having more PIV sex and higher pregnancy rates?
If you’re asking this to inquire about an evolutionary bonus to recreational sex, there are more ways for it to influence evolutionary success than a boost in fertility.
Lots of recreational sex may create/reinforce—or indicate—close social bonds which would make it easier to successfully raise young. And fewer fertility-inducing matings might result in fewer young, which can be a positive adaptation in an environment (and a species) that is suited for quality over quantity, i.e. a place with a limited food supply or a species with slow-growing young that take lots of time and energy to raise and teach. Like bonobos or humans.
(Now, I might for all I know have just accidentally parroted the point you were trying to make—I am solidly undercaffeinated and my brain refuses to let go of the last three things it was asked to deal with. Apologies if that’s the case.)
Comment by Kyra — August 1, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
Those are good points, Kyra, especially the part about investing more in fewer children being a more successful strategy sometimes. What I was aiming at in that sentence was that in the link i posted, the authors of the paper assume that having a higher sex drive = having more sex = having more babies (or at least it would, without modern birth control). And I’m arguing that that’s not self-evident, under all circumstances, but I’ve never seen the connection proven.
Comment by Ethan — August 1, 2010 @ 10:42 pm