I think it is uncomfortable to even address that, because we’re uncomfortable with girls so young giving birth. Especially with the new brain science emerging, which tells us that our brains don’t completely mature until the early-mid-20s, of course we don’t want to be encouraging girls to have children. But I do think that PHYSICALLY, their bodies are ready at mid-teens.

I’m also interested to know why you think that monoandry has more to do with property than progeny? They are related, of course, since women and children have historically been considered property, but I really do think the origins are in the discovery by men of their role in the birth process. Since men can never be as sure as women that they are a biological parent, monogamy and/or monoandry then becomes the attempt to be as sure as possible (with severe consequences for women who stray).

Would France, and contemporary enlightened European cultures, be examples of stable societies in which “voluntary free love” is accepted? Prior, I would refer you to the Mabinogion, a quartet of old Celtic mythology chronicling the transition from Goddess-worshiping nature religions to the patriarchial Christianity. (Robert Graves referred to the Mabinogian in his writings.) One of the books of the quartet begins with a statement something like “this was in the time when women slept with whoever they wanted.” The books clearly explicate one of the reasons for the transition being that men had discovered their role in birth; prior to that they had worshipped feminine deities, and women, as givers of life.

I agree with you that the past is too often romanticized. I also think that the work of many archaeologists have proven that feminine deities were worshipped in many times, in many places, in cultures in which tools of war were not paramount.

I love your analogy regarding food. Great case to be made there. Of course, “unevolved” eating behavior harms only oneself physically, whereas “unevolved” sexual behavior can cause tremendous emotional pain to others.

Your suggested sexual strategies make sense. One of my main points in writing this post was simply to indicate my own fairly recent thinking about the sociobiological aspects. It has fit with my practice of observing, rather than judging. I’m a late bloomer in many aspects; thinking about human sexual behavior in terms of Darwinism is one of those topics I simply hadn’t thought about until the past few years.

Thanks for your comments, Robert. Part of the great continuing conversation. Namaste, Wendy.

I think there is great merit in considering evolutionary psychology in the discussion of sex, but carefully. I agree with Alice that most of the time biological determinism is used to try and excuse behavior ranging from the merely boorish to the truly predatory.

>Some facts are obvious: the bodies of girls/women are best ready to
>have children in their mid-teens through their 20s.

Not to quibble, but I would say LATE teens to 20’s, and I think those few years are a critical distinction. Especially since this is a forum for discussing adolescent sexuality in particular.

>Men want monogamy because its the only way to ensure their progeny.

Again, not meaning to argue over a minor point, but I think it would be more accurate to say men have historically supported monoandry (each woman having only one husband) but men have not had a historical objection to polygyny (one man having more than one wife). I think this has had more to do with a clear demarcation of property rather than progeny.

> I think today many people live very happily in monogamous marriages;
> I don’t think its wrong, I just don’t think its necessary for happiness
> and moral/ethical living.

Fair enough. But are their examples of stable polyamorous societies? Not just multiple wives, but an open state of voluntary free love?

>many people believe that pre-Christian nature religions created a far
> better world, less war, no patriarchy … I think that might be true in
> some times and in some places …

I’ve always thought the vision of the ancient golden age to be more wishful thinking than historical fact. It seems that every culture has a romanticized myth of an untainted past free of the troubles of their current society, be it Eden, Classical Greece, pre-Columbian America, or a pre-Christian equality-utopia.

>Because of this evolution, I do believe our species might be able to
> progress to the point of acting “above and beyond” those hard-wired
> biological “needs,”

I think this is not only possible, but necessary to our survival. I would compare our sexual urges to food. We are hard wired to crave fat and sugar, useful traits for the bulk of our evolution. But food is much more available now and these old urges are now indulged to point that they undermine the health of individuals and our entire culture. We have to learn to recognize how we evolved, discern which parts of that evolutionary response are no longer healthy, and develop new strategies where necessary. Michael Polan has written some great stuff on the food side of this.

I don’t know what those new sexual strategies should be, except a few:
We need to limit the number of children we have.
We need to guarantee equality in sexual expression.
We have to rewire ourselves to value the transmission of values as highly has the transmission of biology – memes over genes.