As a nerd not quite popular in girls, I haven’t got any real experience to support this topic. Having sex for fun without taking the corresponding responsibility is beyond one’s wildest dream. Well, you may snort at this cynicism(zuo4 meng4). Although only fancy guys can have sex with dozens of girls, just like the situation in many species, the truth is that most of us will have long-term sexual partner and intercourse itself is still a private behavior. That’s something non-trivial from the view of zoology. Instead of taking it for granted as the result of human civilization, Diamond tries to explain it from sexual strategies in selection, which is decided by both ecological parameters and parameters of a species’ biology. He points out that, on the contrary, sexuality, as well as large brains and upright posture, participates in building the distinctive human features.
Disappointing as it may be, the sensational headline only makes a small part of the book. What the author is interested in is the bizarre traits that distinguishing us from other animals: “sexuality-long-term sexual partnerships, co-parenting, proximity to the sexual partnerships of others, private sex, concealed ovulation, extended female receptivity, sex for fun, and female menopause-constitute”.
For those who have taken the Human Physiology and Sexual Health, one of the famous courses in PKU (I should recommend it here), you may not be stunned by the comparisons: reading Chap.I & II through only broadens your lexicon in this field. But in the following chapters, Diamond gives you stories can’t be seen in physiology or evolutionary biology class. I will brief two of them here: The first is “Why males and females shares almost balanced nursing responsibility?” and the second “Why the ovulation can’t be observed easily in human?”
Feminists will argue that the first one is merely a pseudo-problem: How could men share the pain in delivery? And how can we say they are co-parenting if they cannot feed the baby with their breasts? Well, if we step back from anthropocentrism to zoo-centrism, man may be the most selfless male animal. Perhaps we should not measure other species in terms of our own value, for natural selection may be the dominating factor in rearing behaviors, including us.
For both sexes, only sexual strategies which maximize the survival of genes can be seen today. Besides the cooperation of bearing offspring, there is also a battle between the two sexes in getting off the rearing burden. Protecting and feeding the young rather than philandering may be a stupid “choice” if: a) The child can be easily survived without or with little care from parents; b) There is possibility that the baby is not genetic correlated with me; c) There is plenty chances to copulating with other mates and give more children outside. Most other female animal can give birth and raise its children without others’ help, which can hardly be seen in human society: even today’s single mothers suffer a lot, let alone those of the hunter-gather society. For humans, most food is acquired by complex technologies far beyond the dexterity or mental ability of a toddler. As a result, our children can live by themselves at least a decade after weaning. In this case, both parents’ care is indispensable.
Generally speaking, female animals are restricted physiologically to intercourse more or less when they are pregnant. And mothers are pretty sure the children they are raising are genetically their offspring. But the same isn’t sure for the male. That’s why male animals desert their mates and children easily soon after copulating.
Fortunately, the possibility of taking care of your rivals’ children (xi3 dang1 die1) is not that high in human society. Though we see cuckolds at times in movies and shows, genetic tests have shown that more than 95% of the babies in the U.S. are legitimate, that is, by the mother's husband. Taking care of your spouse life-time and keep a long-run sexual relationship with her seems worthwhile.
The second question is even trickier, for there are plethora hypotheses to explain concealed ovulation. Among them, “daddy-at-home” theory and “many-fathers” theory seem to be most plausible, though they virtually opposite with each other. “daddy-at-home” views concealed ovulation as a strategy to avoid being desolating by his husband. Because once husband knows that his wife is not ovulating that day, he will turn to outside options safely. Thus concealed ovulation will clarify paternity and reinforce monogamy. Notice we are not talking about today’s human society yet, our ancestor “care” more about the result of fertility rather than their fame. The alternative theory, the “many-fathers” theory comes up from the of infanticide phenomenon. A clear ovulation does clarify the paternity of babies, but it may incur infanticide when a new father come, which impairs to the mother’s genetic benefit. A clever strategy is concealing ovulation and hoping the new-comer would give up infanticide in case killing his own children. If this theory is true, concealed ovulation confuses paternity and effectively undoes monogamy. No matter through which theory, selection eventually renders women unconscious of her ovulation as well so by no means can a male detect it.
It’s impossible to evaluate these two competing theories within the limit history of human beings. Swedish biologists Birgitta Sillen-Tullberg and Anders Moller came up with a method by looking into the family tree of living primate species. By imputation of unrecorded ancestors using Evolutionary Commitment reasoning, the final result is: a)Promiscuity or harems, not monogamy, is the mating system that leads to concealed ovulation; b)Monogamy has usually arisen in species that already had concealed ovulation, and sometimes in species that already had slight ovulatory signals.
So why is sex fun? So far we see more battles than cooperation between male and female. If we follow Diamond’s logic, the only possible explanation is it severs the male’s, the female’s or perhaps both sexes’ genetic interest. It would be a miserable fact if genetic interest is the very basis of most of, if not all of, the behaviors between couples. This somewhat goes too far from what we can bear: For chivalrous gentleman (diao3 si), taking care of a lovely girl is joyful itself. Nevertheless, the paradox of sexual selection is a process when there is a battle between different sexes, there are also one thousand battles within the same sexes. Thus, no gender has absolute power to the other. Through the rude and tyrannic competition and selection, we are lucky to witness the unprecedented sexual harmony, at least from human-beings’ point of view today.
Up to now, you may find out that this book is full of stories in the very long run, perhaps billion times as our life. For those who read it for tips to have more fun in sex or hook up with girls, they may be disappointed. But still, reading it should not be a waste of time, since human may be the only creature on earth who has the power to challenge natural selection. Diamond believes lactation by men is totally possible in the future, physiologically and psychologically: It’s the direction of evolution. It hasn’t happened simply because our evolution speed is too slow. Similarly, finding out the selection logic of sexual strategy may render you an edge both in competing with your same-gender peers and understanding your spouse’s philosophy. Have fun.
Fun from Battle
《性趣探秘》热门书评
-
性爱的演化
174有用 2无用 毛樱桃 2011-03-20
这是一本很有趣而且长知识的书,名字有点标题党,实际内容是关于人的生殖体系的进化。书中提出了几大重要问题,在此书出版时,97年,这些问题都还没有得到彻底解决,作者很诚实的告诉大家,他所做的是提出问题,列举一些解释问题的理论,然后根据动物和人类学里的证据来比较这些理论的高下。第一个问题,男人为何不哺乳?...
-
阴茎是人类的累赘
35有用 1无用 mradw 2009-04-22
“人类阴茎的大小在历史进程中不断增大,为它的主人传递着日益明显的男子气概的信号,直到有一天插入女性的阴道趋于困难时才会限制它继续变长”。 人类真是非常有趣的动物。这本薄薄的小书是从性的角度,企图探讨几个我们认为司空见惯,甚至不值得讨论的问题:为什么仅有人类做爱的唯一目的不是生育后代,为什么男人不给孩...
-
生物学:花心男人的借口?
13有用 1无用 拖延大王 2009-08-20
性是一个人们永远感兴趣的话题,是渗透到我们生命的各个方面的一种千变万化、无限复杂的现象。其实不单单是人类,有知觉的生命无不迷恋于性。最简单直白的解释无非是,通过性,个体可以将自己的基因传递下去。社会生物学奠基者威尔逊曾说,“有机体只是DNA制造更多的DNA 的工具。”在这种意义上说,性使生命成为了不...
-
阳具为什么这么长
8有用 1无用 小满少尉 2011-10-24
警告:以下内容可能不适合18岁以下人士阅读,敬请留意!话说某地某男,天赋异禀,阳具甚长。一日,得知某机构主办“敢不敢挑战”节目,以阳具长者胜,遂前往。行至半路,遇一男子。那人知他参赛,问他本钱如何?某男微微一笑,用手去挽裤脚。谁知那人看罢摇了摇头,撩起衣襟说:“我这家伙在腰上缠了三圈,还没取上,你就...
-
何必有爱
5有用 3无用 沉樱 2011-08-18
《性趣探秘》是作者贾里德•戴蒙德从达尔文主义的人类学角度探讨人类的性,在承认人类的性活动是一个生物进化学上的问题这一假设前提下理解人类的性活动。尽管很难做到完全的客观公正,但是作者本着人类学“离我远去”的视角分析和尝...
书名: 性趣探秘
作者: 贾里德·戴蒙德
出版社: 上海科学技术出版社
原作名: Why Is Sex Fun: The Evolution of Human Sexuality
副标题: 人类性的进化
译者: 郭起浩 | 张明园
出版年: 2008-5
页数: 121
定价: 18.00元
装帧: 平装
丛书: 世纪人文系列丛书·开放人文
ISBN: 9787532393145