What’s Sex Got To Do With It?

For those who have been following my 150-year goal of coming up with a new system to foster lifelong learning from conception to death, you will know that I tend to look at a whole system to judge the success of a particular solution. For instance, increased pay for teachers is a nice thought, but pointless in light of the nature of the public education system to ignore the individual, forcing unnatural age grouping, and reward the average.

So it was with some interest that I read Why We F*ck by David Cain. At first, it struck me as an article I would more likely find on The Good Men Project, a good source for discussions around human sexual experiences. David quickly traces mankind’s current (last couple thousand years, or so) insistence on monogamy to the agrarian development of property:

Much like today, when a landowner died others wanted the land, and the issue of who had legal claim to it had to be settled. The most intuitive arrangement was for a landowner’s offspring to inherit it.

So for the first time ever, it became absolutely necessary for a man to know that his children were his. In the age before birth control and paternity tests, there was only one way for a man to be certain:

He had to make 100 percent sure that his woman never, ever had sex with anyone else.

And so men came to control land by controlling women’s sexuality, and the new “normal” sculpted by this economic trend is still the primary model for us today: sexual monogamy. To secure themselves economically, men demanded virgins and had zero tolerance for any hint of non-monogamy. Fidelity was enforced by vicious social contracts including religious dictates and cultural beliefs, for which women were humiliated, stoned or worse for even expressing the desire to bed with another man.

So monogamy appears to be a cultural phenomenon that has its origins in economics of all places. There isn’t necessarily anything instrinsically wrong with it, but looking at the divorce rates one can’t help but wonder whether it’s a round hole, while humans — biologically at least — carry square pegs.

Interesting as that premise is on its own, David’s thoughts later in the comments are what really got me thinking:

I think culturally enforced monogamy is more likely to create heartbreak and unrealistic attachments than a culture in which it is accepted that people may express love to multiple people.

Which brought me to ponder this: what system would accommodate physical intimacy with more than one at a time? As with most entrenched systems, the interdependencies make it very hard to only “fix one symptom” of a bigger problem. In the one we address here—the foundation of most societies active in the 21st Century—so much of the legal and tax structure is based on the understanding of transfer to heirs that just thinking what would happen if lineage was not easily determined makes the head spin.

It’s the 200+ comments where the discussion of this topic really takes off. I won’t transfer all of that here, but encourage those of you who like a good mental exercise to read this first, then explore more of David’s blog. I think you will enjoy the expanse of topics and depth of thought.

And if you have any ideas on how to build a better societal system, feel free to start that conversation here!

2 Replies to “What’s Sex Got To Do With It?”

  1. your title begs the comment, what about Love. I am convinced true love is at the core of everything. the source and the cause. the power of sex is a river of life and the banks of that river, that make life a safe and healthy thing are marriage, and sex only within that relationship.. Whatever people do with each other that does not involve consummation can not be , by definition, marriage. Personal pleasure and the desire for physical intimacy, can’t be held above the inevitable consequences of fulfilling them. The wiring of men and women are more complex than most men and women will admit these days, but none the less, promiscuity eventualy deadens the heart. The consequence of that is sex becomes less and less interesting, or more and more extreme. poison either way. We are emotionally designed to struggle within the confines of monogamy. The result of learning to live in that harness is good for everyone, individually, man, woman and child, and collectively in society.


  2. Stephen Dill – February 12, 2013
    I think you are quite right, Lorin. The more I think about a life in this time without the trust that your life’s partner respects you and is willing to forego temptation to become intimate with others the more I realize how rapidly such a relationship would deteriorate. Or at least the strain it would place on one or the other if there was not parity – and then what kind of relationship would that really be?

    Have you seen “House of Cards,” the Netflix television series? In it Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright portray such a couple. It seems cool at first, but over time there is great stress on their trust and their relationship slowly unravels.

    While David’s scenario of the hunter gatherer population using copulation as a stress relief mechanism and a way to get to know the others in the tribe seems logical for humans as a species, the applicability in today’s societies and cultures is not realistic, given the absence of tribes, much less the complicated legal, moral and ethical constructs we have built for ourselves. Some could argue these are ego constructs traceable back to that transition to an agrarian economy that David referenced in his post. Regardless, there are very few whose consciousness stays at a sustained state of disconnection from their ego to see a partner as a spiritual traveller with them, much less allow them to express their physical attraction to others without effect.

    As soon as I published this post a couple of people spoke with me in emails about polyamorous friends they have and have watched over the years. The common assessment—for those that lasted any length of time at all—was that while it looked like all was cool, the level of drama was always unnaturally high and the relationships seemed much more fragile than others felt was healthy. While interesting anecdotes, I suspect they are nothing more than attempts to control ego and maintain some higher thought of fidelity.

    Thanks for your input, Lorin!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: