In my talk to the Bay Area Atheists, I discussed the evidence for our socio-sexual orientation. A concept I discuss in Sex and God. When I introduced the concept to the group and asked, "How many of your are familiar with this idea?" not one hand raised. This is NOT to be confused with Sexual Orientation. The research on this concept has been around for 20 years, yet no one in the sex education or even the sex positive community seems to know about it. Take a look at this brief article

and then read Chapter 20 of Sex and God.

Views: 201


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by jay H on July 15, 2012 at 11:23am
I am NOT claiming that females are monogamous (humans as a species are not). There is somewhat of an advantage at times to mixing up genetic partners, and definitely moving to another partner if one is not satisfactory. However there is NOT the same evolutionary advantage where the number of offspring increases almost linearly with number of matings as happens with males. So the selective pressures are very different.
Comment by Daniel W on July 15, 2012 at 9:18am

Oh, I forgot - again, from the evolutionary benefit standpoint, for the female human who chooses one partner only, if her partner is not fertile, too bad.  If she chooses many partners, then reproduction is more likely.  There is thought about homo sapiens male genitalia, that the  human penis is larger relative to body size, and has a coronal ridge, both of which serve to displace semen from prior recent sexual partners and improve reproduction effectiveness of the most recent partner, and one with most effectively shaped and sized  penis.  Who knows if this hypothesis is valid.  It's also on wikipedia.   But if it is, that means this part of human anatomy evolved with promiscuity as part of our species history.  As primates, I think humans are a pretty horny animal in general, and that can find expression in a number of ways.

Comment by Daniel W on July 15, 2012 at 9:03am

Jay, I wonder if females also wouldn't increase their genetic heritage by mating with multi partners.  Depends on how social a species is, I would imagine, as well as how long it takes to bear offspring, and how long and how much effort to raise them.  Multiple fathers would make for more diverse offspring, making for greater adaptability to environmental challenges and other changes.  Having a single male partner might make for more security in raising offspring - but that only goes so far.  It depends on life expectency in the primeval families, as well.  Short life would make increased need for extended family and community roles in raising offspring, making purely monogamous bonding less important or less beneficial.  Looking at other species, there are monogamous and promiscuous species, and species in between. 


I also wonder if sociosexual orientation an be considered genetic, if this featureis not constant throughout life.  People can go through phases depending on their age, their circumstances, and other psychosocial and biological  factors.  I know from my own life story, there have been times when i wanted nothing other than one person and hoped for that for life, and other times when I dated around and experimented.  I've known others with similar stories.  Not knowing a lot about this concept, it does seem it can be fluid, not static.

Comment by jay H on July 15, 2012 at 8:51am
I would also comment that sexual proclivity is only one component in the marriage/divorce dichotomy and it could be a mistake to place too much emphasis on that. Long term pairing involves very complex social and emotional cooperative interactions, including melding your desires with your partner's. Lots of people seem to simply not have that talent (quite likely this to is significantly genetic).
Comment by jay H on July 15, 2012 at 8:45am
It's odd that when the article just softly says that men are "men in general are more unrestricted in sociosexual orientation" as if sexual novelty seeking were a subtle variance in human nature. Evolutionarily, males who mated with as many females as possible had a virtually linear increase in their genetic contribution to the gene pool. By contrast, females often have little to gain directly genetically under most circumstances.

Evolution in action.
Comment by Daniel W on July 13, 2012 at 11:26pm


maybe this

 is the psych today article?

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on July 13, 2012 at 12:01am

"problem loading page" Please check the link.

Comment by Steph S. on July 12, 2012 at 11:48pm
I will check that link out. I will buy that book. I bought your other book. It's great!


Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service