This book made available by the Internet Archive.

FOR RAY CARROLL

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011

http://www.archive.org/details/anatomyoflovenatOOfish
CONTENTS

6. "WHEN WILD IN WOODS THE NOBLE savage ran'

Life among Our Ancestors in the Trees 118

7. OUT OF EDEN

A Theory on the Origin of Monogamy and Desertion 139

8. EROS

Emergence of the Sexual Emotions 162

9. THE SIREN'S WEB

Evolution of Human Sexual Anatomy

IO. WHY CAN'T A MAN BE MORE LIKE A WOMAN?

Development of the Human Sexual Brain 189

11. WOMEN, MEN, AND POWER

The Nature of Sexual Politics 209

12. ALMOST HUMAN

Genesis of Kinship and the Teenager

22 7 13. THE FIRST AFFLUENT SOCIETY

A Flowering of Conscience

14. FICKLE PASSION

Romance in Yesteryears 259

Contents
15. "till death us do part"

Birth of Western Double Standards

*75

l6. FUTURE SEX

Forward to the Past 202

Notes 3*3

Appendix

357

Bibliography

363

Index 409

To the Reader

A "W4^o/ Seeing"

am an identical twin. By the time I was four or five, I had begun to

notice grown-ups staring at my twin sister and me as they asked us
questions. Did I know when Lorna was in trouble? Did we like the
same toys? Did I ever think I was Lorna? I remember sitting in the
backseat of the family car and comparing hands. We laughed alike and
still do. We both like risk, although we display it very differently. She
is a hot-air-balloon pilot in Colorado, whereas I discuss emotionally
charged issues such as adultery and divorce on television and the
podium. She is also an artist. She paints large canvases with tiny
brushstrokes, whereas I move tiny words across hundreds of
manuscript pages. Both are jobs that require patience and attention to
details. And we both work alone.

So as a child I started, quite unconsciously, to weigh my behavior:

How much of it was inherited? How much of it was learned?

Then, in graduate school, I discovered the "nature/nurture" debate.

John Locke's concept of the "tabula rasa," or empty tablet, was
particularly troubling. Was every infant really a blank sheet of paper
on which culture inscribed personality? I didn't believe it.

Then I read Jane GoodaH's book In the Shadow of Man, about the
wild chimpanzees of Tanzania. These creatures had different
personalities, and they made friends, held hands, kissed, gave one
another gifts of leaves and twigs, and mourned when a companion
died. I was overcome by the emotional continuity between man and
beast. And I became convinced that some of my behavior was
biological in origin.

So this book is about the innate aspects of sex and love and marriage,
those mating traits and tendencies that we inherited from our past.
Human behavior is a complex mixture of environmental and
hereditary forces and I do not wish to minimize the power of culture in
influencing human action. But it is the genetic contributions to
behavior that have always intrigued me.

The book began on a New York subway. I was pouring over American
marriage statistics and I noticed some peculiar patterns to divorce. I
wondered if these same patterns might appear in other cultures. So I
looked at divorce data on sixty-two societies contained in the
demographic yearbooks of the United Nations; there I found some
similar curious designs. Then I examined data on adultery in forty-two
cultures. And when I compared these worldwide figures on human
bonding with patterns of monogamy, "cheating," and desertion in
birds and nonhuman mammals, I found some similarities so
compelling that they led me to a general theory for the evolution of
human sex and family life.

Why do we marry? Why are some of us adulterous? Why do human

beings divorce? Why do we remarry and try our luck again? The book
begins with chapters on the nature of courting, infatuation,
monogamy, adultery, and divorce. Then, starting in chapter 6, I dial
back to the beginning of human social life and trace the evolution of
our sexuality from its inception on the grasslands of East Africa some
four million years ago, through life among the cave painters of Ice Age
Europe and on into contemporary times, both in the West and more
"exotic" places.

In the course of presenting my theories, I examine why we fall in love

with one person rather than another, the experience of love at first
sight, the physiology of attachment and philandering, why men have
large penises and women display permanently enlarged breasts,
gender differences in the brain, the evolution of "women, men, and
power," the genesis of teenage, the origin of our conscience, and many
other creations of our human sexual impulse. Finally, in the last
chapter, I use all these data to make some predictions about
"relationships" tomorrow and, if we survive as a species, millennia
from now.

But first a few caveats. Along the way I make many generalizations.
Neither your behavior nor mine fits all of the patterns I will

describe. Why should it? There is no reason to expect a tight

correlation between all human actions and general rules of human
nature. I focus on the predominant patterns, rather than on the
exceptions.

Moreover, I make no effort to be "politically correct." Nature designed

men and women to work together. But I cannot pretend that they are
alike. They are not alike. And I have given evolutionary and biological
explanations for their differences where I find them appropriate.

I have also resisted some fads in anthropology. It is at present

unpopular, for example, to use the !Kung Bushmen of southern Africa
as a model for reconstructing life in our hunting-gathering past. My
reasons for continuing to use their society as a model are laid out in
one of many endnotes that I hope you will have time to read.
Most alarming to some readers, I discuss the possible genetic
components and adaptive features of complicated, controversial, and
often highly painful social behaviors such as adultery and divorce. I
am certainly not advocating infidelity or desertion; rather, I am trying
to understand these disturbing facts of human life.

Last, I am an ethologist, one who is interested in the genetic aspects of

behavior. Ethologists have, as Margaret Mead once said of the
anthropological perspective, a "way of seeing." In my view, human
beings have a common nature, a set of shared unconscious tendencies
or potentialities that are encoded in our DNA and that evolved because
they were of use to our forebears millions of years ago. We are not
aware of these predispositions, but they still motivate our actions.

I do not think, however, that we are puppets of our genes, that our
DNA determines our behavior. On the contrary, culture sculpts
innumerable and diverse traditions from our common human genetic
material; then individuals respond to their environment and heredity
in idiosyncratic ways that philosophers have long attributed to "free
will."

In our drive to understand ourselves, we first studied the sun and

moon and stars, then the plants and animals around us. Only in the
past two centuries have we scientifically examined our social net-

works and our minds. Victorians put books by male and female
authors on separate shelves. Sex researcher Alfred Kinsey made his
pioneering studies of American sexuality as recently as the 1950s. And
academics have only just begun to inspect the genetic undercurrents of
human mating practices. So this book is an attempt to explore the
nature of our romantic lives.

There is magic to love—as poets and sweethearts know. I don't pretend

to penetrate this sanctum. But our sexual imperatives are tangible,
knowable. And I firmly believe that the better we come to understand
our human heritage, the greater will be our power over it and the
stronger our free will.
Helen E. Fisher

Acknowledgments

A hank you Ray Carroll, Florine and Gene Katz, and Helen Fisher, my
mother, for your wonderful encouragement. Thank you Judy Andrews
and Sue Carroll, for your fine research assistance.

I am enormously grateful to Mary Cunnane, my editor at W. W.

Norton, as well as William Rusin, Fran Rosencrantz, Jeannie Luciano,
Patricia Anthonyson, Caroline Crawford, and the rest of the Norton
staff for their invaluable efforts on behalf of this book.

I also thank Amanda Urban, my agent, for her expert guidance, Lynn
Goldberg and Louise Brockett for their sound advice, Nancy Crampton
for taking my picture, Michael Rothman for drawing the illustration in
the book, Otto Sonntag for copyediting the book, and Sydney Cohen
for preparing the index.

I am indebted to my colleagues Robert Alford, Laura Betzig, Vern

Bullough, Robert Carneiro, Ray Carroll, Andrew Cherlin, Ceciley
Collins, Ellen Dissanayake, Perry Faithorn, Stan Freed, David Giv-ens,
Terry Harrison, Sarah Hrdy, Albin Jones, Florine Katz, Warren
Kinzey, Laura Klein, Peter Lacey, Michael Liebowitz, Richard Mil-ner,
Merry Muraskin, Barbara Pillsbury, Carolyn Reynolds, Alice Rossi,
Lionel Tiger, Wenda Trevathan, Michael Trupp, Randall White, and
Milford Wolpoff for their good counsel or important comments on
various sections of the manuscript.

Last, I thank my friends and family for their patience and good humor
during the several years of writing this book.

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of
mankind is man. Placed on this isthmus of a middle state, A being
darkly wise and rudely great: With too much knowledge for the Sceptic
side, With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride, He hangs between,
in doubt to act or rest; In doubt to deem himself a God or beast; In
doubt his mind or body to prefer; Born but to die, and reas hing but to
err; Alike in ignorance, his reason such, Whether he thinks too little or
too much; Chaos of thought and passion, all confused; Still by himself
abused or disabused; Created half to rise, and half to fall; Great lord of
all things, yet a prey to all; Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled;
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world.

— Alexander Pope

Courting

Games People Play

Moved by the force of love,

fragments of the world seek out one another

so that a world may be.

— Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

n an apocryphal story, a colleague once turned to the great British

geneticist J. B. S. Haldane, and said, 'Tell me, Mr. Haldane, knowing
what you do about nature, what can you tell me about God?" Haldane
replied, "He has an inordinate fondness for beetles." Indeed, the world
contains over 300,000 species of beetles. I would add that "God" loves
the human mating game, for no other aspect of our behavior is so
complex, so subtle, or so pervasive. And although these sexual
strategies differ from one individual to the next, the essential
choreography of human courtship, love, and marriage has myriad
designs that seem etched into the human psyche, the product of time,
selection, and evolution.

They begin the moment men and women get within courting range—
with the way we flirt.

Body Talk

In the 1960s Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, a German ethologist, 1 noticed a

curious pattern to women's flirting behavior. Eibl-Eibesfeldt had used
a camera with a secret lens so that when he directed the camera
straight ahead, he was actually taking pictures to the side. This way he
could focus on local sights and catch on film the unstaged facial
expressions of people near him. In his travels to Samoa, Papua,
France, Japan, Africa, and Amazonia, he recorded numerous flirting
sequences. Then, back in his laboratory at the Max Planck Institute for
Behavioral Physiology, near Munich, Germany, he carefully examined
each courting episode, frame by frame.

A universal pattern of female flirting emerged. Women from places as

different as the jungles of Amazonia, the salons of Paris, and the
highlands of New Guinea apparently flirt with the same sequence of
expressions.

First, the woman smiles at her admirer and lifts her eyebrows in a
swift, jerky motion as she opens her eyes wide to gaze at him. Then she
drops her eyelids, tilts her head down and to the side, and looks away.
Frequently she also covers her face with her hands, giggling nervously
as she retreats behind her palms. This sequential flirting gesture is so
distinctive that Eibl-Eibesfeldt is convinced it is innate, a human
female courtship ploy that evolved eons ago to signal sexual interest.

Other gambits people use may also come from our primeval past. The
coy look is a gesture in which a woman cocks her head and looks up
shyly at her suitor. A female possum does this too, turning toward her
suitor, cocking her snouty jaw, and looking straight into his eyes.
Animals frequently toss their heads in order to solicit attention.
Courting women do it regularly; they raise their shoulders, arch their
backs, and toss their locks in a single sweeping motion. Albatross toss
their heads and snap their bills between bouts of nodding, bowing, and
rubbing bills together. Mud turtles extend and retract their heads,
almost touching noses. Women are not the only creatures who use
their heads to flirt. 2

Men also employ courting tactics similar to those seen in other

species. Have you ever walked into the boss's office and seen him
leaning back in his chair, hands clasped behind his head, elbows high,
and chest thrust out? Perhaps he has come from behind his desk,
walked up to you, smiled, arched his back, and thrust his upper body
in your direction? If so, watch out. He may be subconsciously
announcing his dominance over you. If you are a woman, he may be
courting you instead.

The "chest thrust" is part of a basic postural message used across the
animal kingdom—"standing tall." Dominant creatures puff up. Codfish
bulge their heads and thrust out their pelvic fins. Snakes, frogs, and
toads inflate their bodies. Antelope and chameleons turn broadside to
emphasize their bulk. Mule deer look askance to show their antlers.
Cats bristle. Pigeons swell. Lobsters raise themselves onto the tips of
their walking legs and extend their open claws. Gorillas pound their
chests. Men just thrust out their chests.

When confronted by a more dominant animal, many creatures shrink.

People turn in their toes, curl their shoulders, and hang their heads.
Wolves tuck their tails between their legs and slink. Subordinate
lobsters crouch. And many species bow. A bullied codfish curls its
body downward. Lizards move their whole bodies up and down.
Deferential chimpanzees nod their heads so rapidly and repeatedly
that primatologists call it bobbing.

These "crouch" and "loom" positions seen in a host of creatures are

often manifest in courtship too. I recall a cartoon in a European
magazine. In the first box a man in swimming trunks stands alone on
an empty beach—his head sags, his stomach protrudes, his chest is
concave. In the next box, an attractive woman is shown walking along
the beach past the man; now his head is erect, his stomach sucked in,
his chest inflated. In the last box, the woman is gone and he has
resumed his normal, sad-sack pose. It is not uncommon to see men
and women swell and shrink in order to signal importance,
defenselessness, and approachability.

The "Copulatory" Gaze

The gaze is probably the most striking human courting ploy. Eye
language. In Western cultures, where eye contact between the sexes

is permitted, men and women often stare intently at a potential mate

for about two to three seconds during which their pupils may dilate—a
sign of extreme interest. Then the starer drops his or her eyelids and
looks away. 3

No wonder the custom of the veil has been adopted in so many

cultures. Eye contact seems to have an immediate effect. The gaze
triggers a primitive part of the human brain, calling forth one of two
basic emotions—approach or retreat. You cannot ignore the eyes of
another fixed on you; you must respond. You may smile and start
conversation. You may look away and edge toward the door. But first
you will probably tug at an earlobe, adjust your sweater, yawn, fidget
with your eyeglasses, or perform some other meaningless movement—
a "displacement gesture"—to alleviate anxiety while you make up your
mind how to acknowledge this invitation, whether to flee the premises
or stay and play the courting game.

This look, known to ethologists as the copulatory gaze, may well be

embedded in our evolutionary psyche. Chimpanzees and other
primates gaze at enemies to threaten them; they look deeply into the
eyes of one another in order to reconcile after a battle too. The gaze is
also employed before coitus, as seen among "pygmy" chimpanzees—
apes closely related to the common chimp but smaller and perhaps
smarter. Several of these almost human creatures live in the San Diego
Zoo, where males and females copulate regularly. But just before
intercourse the couple spend several moments staring deeply into each
other's eyes. 4

Baboons gaze at each other during courtship too. These animals may
have branched off of our human evolutionary tree more than nineteen
million years ago, yet this similarity in wooing persists. As
anthropologist Barbara Smuts has said of a budding baboon courtship
on the Eburru cliffs of Kenya, "It looked like watching two novices in a
singles bar." 5

The affair began one evening when a female baboon, Thalia, turned
and caught a young male, Alex, staring at her. They were about fifteen
feet apart. He glanced away immediately. So she stared at him—until
he turned to look at her. Then she intently fiddled

with her toes. On it went. Each time she stared at him, he looked away;
each time he stared at her, she groomed her feet. Finally Alex caught
Thalia gazing at him—the "return gaze."

Immediately he flattened his ears against his head, narrowed his

eyelids, and began to smack his lips, the height of friendliness in
baboon society. Thalia froze. Then, for a long moment, she looked him
in the eye. Only after this extended eye contact had occurred did Alex
approach her, at which point Thalia began to groom him— the
beginning of a friendship and sexual liaison that was still going strong
six years later, when Smuts returned to Kenya to study baboon
friendships.

Perhaps it is the eye—not the heart, the genitals, or the brain— that is
the initial organ of romance, for the gaze (or stare) often triggers the
human smile.

"There is a smile of love / And there is a smile of deceit," wrote the

poet William Blake. Actually human beings have at least eighteen
distinctive types of smiles, 6 only some of which we use while courting.
Both men and women use the "simple smile," a closed-mouth gesture,
when they greet a familiar passerby. In this expression, the lips are
closed but stretched, and no teeth are showing; the gesture is often
combined with a nod to express acknowledgment. People who smile at
you like this will probably not pause to get acquainted.

The human "upper smile" signals stronger interest. In this expression,

you expose your upper teeth to show your positive intentions. The
upper smile is often combined with a one-sixth-of-a-second eyebrow
flash, in which the eyebrows are raised, then quickly dropped. Eibl-
Eibesfeldt has seen this upper smile among Europeans, Bali-nese,
Amazonian Indians, and Bushmen of southern Africa, and he reports
that it is used in all sorts of friendly contacts—including flirting.
Chimps and gorillas use this half smile when they play. But they show
their bottom teeth rather than their top ones. In this way they conceal
their daggerlike upper fangs, canine teeth with which they threaten
one another.

The "open smile," in which the lips are completely drawn back and
both upper and lower teeth are fully exposed, is what we often

use to "pick up" one another. Former President Jimmy Carter's smile
is a remarkable example. Carter was courting our minds, our votes,
our opinions; had he coupled this "super smile'' with the sequential
flirt, the coy look, the head toss, the chest thrust, or the gaze, his
intentions would have been unmistakably sexual instead.

The "nervous social smile," another type of human grin, plays a

distinctly negative role in courtship. It stems from an ancient
mammalian practice to bare one's teeth when cornered. I once saw a
marvelous example of it during a television appearance. My host was
being verbally assailed by her other guest. She could not be impolite or
leave the set. So she pulled her lips back and exposed both rows of
firmly clenched teeth. Then she froze, holding this nervous grin.

Chimpanzees employ the nervous social smile, the "bared teeth"

display, when confronted by a superior. They use it to express a
combination of fear, friendliness, and appeasement. We make the
nervous social smile in difficult social situations too, but never when
courting. So if a potential lover grins at you with clenched teeth, you
can be fairly sure that he or she is thinking less of wooing than of
surviving the introduction.

Universal Courting Cues

Despite the obvious correlations between the courting gestures of

humans and those of other animals, it has taken over a century of
investigation to prove that human beings around the world actually do
share many of the same nonverbal cues. Darwin was the first to
wonder about the heritability of human facial expressions and body
postures. To confirm his suspicion that all men and women use the
same gestures and poses to express basic human emotions, he sent a
query to colleagues in remote areas of the Americas, Africa, Asia, and
Australia in 1867.

Among his many questions about the aboriginals were these: "When a
man is indignant or defiant does he frown, hold his body and head
erect, square his shoulders and clench his fists?" "Is disgust shown by
the lower lip being turned down, the upper lip slightly raised, with a
sudden expiration?" "When in good spirits do the eyes sparkle, with
the skin a little wrinkled round and under them, and with the mouth a
little drawn back at the corners?" 7

Scientists, journalists, missionaries, and friends from around the

world replied yes to Darwin's queries, and he became convinced that
joy, sorrow, happiness, surprise, fear, and many other human feelings
were expressed in panhuman gestural patterns inherited from a
common evolutionary past. These nonverbal cues included the human
smile. As he later wrote in his book The Expression of the Emotions in
Man and Animals (1872), "With all the races of man the expression of
good spirit appears to be the same, and is easily recognized."

More than a hundred years later psychologist Paul Ekman and his
colleagues confirmed Darwin's conviction that the same basic facial
postures are used by various peoples around the world. When he
showed pictures of American faces to Fore tribesmen of New Guinea,
Sadong villagers of Sarawak, Brazilians, and Japanese and asked them
to identify the expressions, these diverse men and women easily
recognized the expressions of sorrow, surprise, disgust, fear, and anger
—as well as the American grin. 8

Smiling, it seems, we were born to do. Some infants begin to imitate

their mother's smile within thirty-six hours after birth, and all babies
begin social smiling at about three months of age. 9 Even children
born blind and deaf burst into radiant grins, although they have never
seen this facial gesture in those around them.

Like the smile, the sequential flirt, the coy look, the head toss, the
chest thrust, and the gaze are probably all part of a standard human
repertoire of gestures that, used in certain contexts, evolved to attract
a mate.

Could these courting cues be part of a larger human mating dance?

David Givens, an anthropologist, and Timothy Perper, a biologist,

think so. Both scientists have spent several hundred hours in
American cocktail lounges watching men and women pick each other
up. Givens did his work in the pubs around the University of
Washington campus in Seattle. Perper sipped his beer, stared at young
singles, and took notes in the Main Brace Lounge, The Homestead,
and other bars in New Jersey, New York, and eastern Canada. Both
scientific voyeurs found the same general pattern to the courting
process. 10

According to these investigators, American singles-bar courtship

has several stages, each with distinctive escalation points. I shall

divide them into five. The first is the "attention getting" phase. Young
men and women do this somewhat differently. As soon as they enter
the bar, both males and females typically establish a territory—a seat,
a place to lean, a position near the jukebox or dance floor. Once
settled, they begin to attract attention to themselves.

Tactics vary. Men tend to pitch and roll their shoulders, stretch, stand
tall, and shift from foot to foot in a swaying motion. They also
exaggerate their body movements. Instead of simply using the wrist to
stir a drink, men often employ the entire arm, as if stirring mud. The
normally smooth motion necessary to light a cigarette becomes a
whole-body gesture, ending with an elaborate shaking from the elbow
to extinguish the match. And the whole body is employed in hearty
laughter—made loud enough to attract a crowd. Thus simple gestures
are embellished, overdone.
Then there is the swagger with which young men often move to and
fro. Male baboons on the grasslands of East Africa also swagger when
they foresee a potential sexual encounter. A male gorilla walks back
and forth stiffly as he watches a female out of the corner of his eye.
This parading gait is known to primatologists as bird-dogging. Males
of many species also preen. Human males pat their hair, adjust their
clothes, tug their chins, or perform other self-clasping or grooming
movements that diffuse nervous energy and keep the body moving.

Older men often use different props, advertising their availability with
expensive jewelry, clothing, and other accoutrements that spell
success. But all of these signals can be reduced to one basic, three-part
message: "I am here; I am important; I am harmless." What a difficult
mixture of signals to give out simultaneously—importance and
approachability. Yet men succeed; women regularly court men.

'it is better to be looked over than overlooked," Mae West once said.
And women know it. Young women begin the attention-getting phase
with many of the same maneuvers that men use— smiling, gazing,
shifting, swaying, preening, stretching, moving in their territory to
draw attention to themselves. Often they incorporate a battery of
feminine moves as well. They twist their curls, tilt their heads, look up
coyly, giggle, raise their brows, flick their

tongues, lick their upper lips, blush, and hide their faces in order to
signal, "I am here."

Some women also have a characteristic walk when courting; they arch
their backs, thrust out their bosoms, sway their hips, and strut. No
wonder many women wear high-heeled shoes. This bizarre Western
custom, invented by Catherine de Medici in the 1500s, unnaturally
arches the back, tilts the buttocks, and thrusts the chest out into a
female come-hither pose. The clomping noise of their spiky heels helps
draw attention too.

With this high-heeled gait, puckered lips, batting eyes, dancing brows,
upturned palms, pigeoned toes, rocking bodies, swaying skirts, and
gleaming teeth, women signal approachability to men.
Grooming Talk

Stage two, the "recognition" stage, starts when eyes meet eyes; then
one or the other potential lover acknowledges the demarche with a
smile or slight body shift, and the couple move into talking range. 11
This tan be the beginning of the romance.

But it is nowhere near as risky as the next major escalation point:

stage three—talk. This idle, often meaningless conversation, which
Desmond Morris calls grooming talk, is distinctive because voices
often become higher, softer, and more singsongy—tones one also uses
to express affection to children and concern for those in need of care.

Grooming talk starts with such benign statements as "I like your
watch" or "How's the food?" The icebreakers are as varied as the
human imagination, but the best leads are either compliments or
questions, since both require a response. Moreover, what you say often
matters less than how you say it. This is critical. The moment you open
your mouth and speak, you give away your intentions with your
inflection and intonation. A high-pitched, gentle, mellifluous "hello" is
often a sign of sexual interest, whereas a clipped, low, matter-of-fact,
or perfunctory "hi" rarely leads to love. If a prospective mate laughs
somewhat more than the situation calls for, she or he is probably
flirting too.

Talking is dangerous for an important reason. The human voice is

like a second signature that reveals not only your intentions but also
your background, education, and intangible idiosyncrasies of character
that can attract or repel a potential mate in moments. Actors, public
speakers, diplomats, and habitual liars know the power of vocal tones,
so they regularly modulate their voices. Movie actors raise their voices
almost an octave to adopt sweet, flowing tones when "flirting" on the
set. And smart liars avoid fibbing on the telephone, a purely auditory
medium where subtle inconsistencies in emphasis and intonation are
easily discerned. We are taught from childhood to control our facial
expressions, as when our parents tell us to "smile for grandma," but
most of us are unconscious of the power of the voice.
Both Givens and Perper saw many potential love affairs go astray soon
after conversation started. 12 But if a couple weather this perceptual
onslaught—and each begins to listen actively to the other— they often
move to stage four: touch. 13

Touching begins with "intention cues"—leaning forward, resting one's

arm toward the other's on the table, moving one's foot closer if both
persons are standing or stroking one's own arm as if to stroke the
other's. Then the climax—one person touches the other on the
shoulder, the forearm, the wrist, or some other socially available body
part. Normally the woman touches first, grazing her hand along her
suitor's body in the most casual but calculated manner.

How insignificant this touching looks, yet how important this touching
is. Human skin is like a field of grass, each blade a nerve ending so
sensitive that the slightest graze can etch into the human brain a
memory of the moment. The receiver notices this message instantly. If
he flinches, the pickup is over. If he withdraws, even barely, the sender
may never try to touch again. If he ignores the overture, she may touch
once more. But if he leans toward her, smiles, or returns the gesture
with his own deliberate touch, they have surmounted a major barrier
well known in the animal community.

Most mammals caress when courting. Blue whales rub each other with
their flippers. Male butterflies stroke and rub their mate's abdomens
as they couple. Dolphins nibble. Moles rub noses. Dogs lick.

Chimpanzees kiss, hug, pat, and hold hands. Mammals generally

stroke, groom, or nuzzle prior to copulation.

Touch has been called the mother of the senses. No doubt this is true,
for every human culture has codes that indicate who may touch whom
and when, where, and how. Imaginative and resourceful in their
variety, these touching games are basic to human courting too. So if
our pair continue to talk and touch—bobbing, tilting, gazing, smiling,
swaying, flirting—they usually achieve the last stage of the courtship
ritual: total body synchrony.
Keeping Time

Body synchrony is the final and most intriguing component of the

pickup. As potential lovers become comfortable, they pivot or swivel
until their shoulders become aligned, their bodies face-to-face. This
rotation toward each other may start before they begin to talk or hours
into conversation, but after a while the man and woman begin to move
in tandem. Only briefly at first. When he lifts his drink, she lifts hers.
Then they desynchronize. In time, however, they mirror each other
more and more. When he crosses his legs, she crosses hers; as he leans
left, she leans left; when he smooths his hair, she smoothes hers. They
move in perfect rhythm as they gaze deeply into each other's eyes.

This beat of love, of sex, of eternal human reproduction, may be

interrupted at any moment. But if the two are to pass on the thread of
human life, they will resume their tempo and continue their mating
dance. Couples that reach total body synchrony often leave the bar
together.

Is the five-part pickup universal to men and women? We do not know.

Certainly not everybody in the world exhibits all of the behavior
patterns that Givens and Perper found in American singles joints.
People in most societies do not meet in bars. Many do not even court
one another openly; instead, their marriages are arranged. And few
anthropologists have studied the postures, gestures, and expressions
that men and women in other cultures use when they interact. But
there is a great deal of ancillary evidence to suggest that some of these
patterns are universal to humankind.

In Borneo, for example, a Dusun woman often cocks her head and

gazes at a potential lover. When she passes him the rice wine at a
party, she casually touches him on the hands as well. 14 In fact, most
travelers know that you do not have to speak the local language to flirt
successfully. The gaze, the smile, the gentle touch seem to be integral
to wooing everywhere.

There is even more evidence that body synchrony is universal to

human courtship. In every society where men and women are allowed
to choose their lovers, singles meet at parties or festivals and dance.
And what is dancing but rhythmic gestures, tandem body movement?

The Medlpa of New Guinea have even ritualized this mimicry. Among
these people unmarried girls meet potential spouses in a tanem het, a
common-room in their parents' house. Several potential spouses,
dressed from head to toe in finery, assemble and sit in pairs. The
"head rolling" festivities begin as couples sing. Then potential partners
sway their heads, rub foreheads and noses, and bow to each other
repeatedly, all to a throbbing beat. To the Medlpa, synchrony is
harmony. They say that the better one partner keeps the other's time,
the more likely the couple are suited to each other. 15

Actually, body synchrony is basic to many social interactions—

courtship being only one. In the 1960s a student of anthropologist
Edward Hall took a camera to a playground in the American Midwest
and, crouching behind an abandoned car to watch and tape, he caught
on film the children's movements as they interacted during recess.
Carefully studying the filmed sequences, Hall noticed in the children's
body motions a uniform, synchronized rhythm. Apparently all of the
children played in tandem, to a beat. Moreover, one very active little
girl skipped around the playground—and set the pace. Every other
child unconsciously kept her time. 16

Called interactional synchrony, this human mirroring begins in

infancy. By the second day of life, a newborn has begun to synchronize
its body movements with the rhythmic patterns of the human voice.
And it is now well established that people in many other cultures get
into rhythm when they feel comfortable together. Photographs and
slow-motion films of people in cafes, railroad stations, supermarkets,
cocktail parties, and other public places in diverse societies illustrate
this human tendency to adopt one another's postures.

And the beat goes on. When friends are hooked up to

electroencephalographs, which measure brain activity, the resulting
tracings show that even brain waves get "in sync" when two people
have a harmonious conversation. In fact, if you sit at the dinner table
and watch carefully, you can conduct the conversation with your hand
as family members talk and eat. Stressed syllables usually keep the
beat. But even silences are rhythmic; as one person pats her mouth,
another reaches for the salt—right on cue. Rests and syncopations,
voices lowered, elbows raised, these mark the pulse of living as well as
of love. 17

Our need to keep each other's time reflects a rhythmic mimicry

common to many other animals. On a number of occasions
primatologist Wolfgang Kohler entered the chimp enclosure in a
primate research center to find a group of males and females trotting
in "a rough approximate rhythm" around and around a pole. Kohler
said the animals wagged their heads as they swung along, each leading
with the same foot. Chimps sometimes sway from side to side as they
stare into one another's eyes just prior to copulation too. In fact,
nothing is more basic to courtship in animals than rhythmic
movement. Cats circle. Red deer prance. Howler monkeys court with
rhythmic tongue movements. Stickleback fish do a zigzag jig. From
bears to beetles, courting couples perform rhythmic rituals to express
their amorous intentions.

To dance is natural. So I think it reasonable to suggest that body

synchrony is a universal stage of the human courting process: as we
become attracted to each other, we begin to keep a common beat.

Wooing Runs on Messages

Human courtship has other similarities to courtship in "lower"

animals. Normally people woo each other slowly. Caution during
courtship is also characteristic of spiders. The male wolf spider, for
example, must enter the long, dark entrance of a female's compound
in order to court and copulate. This he does slowly. If he is overeager,
she devours him.

Men and women who are too aggressive at the beginning of the
courting process also suffer unpleasant consequences. If you come too
close, touch too soon, or talk too much, you will probably be
repelled. Like wooing among wolf spiders, baboons, and many other
creatures, the human pickup runs on messages. At every juncture in
the ritual each partner must respond correctly, otherwise the
courtship fails.

In fact, Perper began to see a curious division of labor in this exchange

of signals. American women generally initiate the courting sequence—
starting with subtle nonverbal cues such as a slight shift in body
weight, a smile, or gaze. Women began two-thirds of all the pickups
that Perper witnessed. And the women he later interviewed were quite
conscious of having coaxed a potential lover into conversation,
touching him carefully here or there, enticing him ever forward with
coquettish looks, questions, compliments, and jokes.

Female forwardness is not, of course, a purely American phenomenon.

In the 1950s Clellan Ford and Frank Beach, well-known tabulators of
cross-cultural sex practices, confirmed that although most peoples
think men are supposed to take the initiative in sexual advances, in
practice women around the world actively begin sexual liaisons. This is
still the case. Men and women in seventy-two of ninety-three societies
surveyed in the 1970s maintained that both sexes demonstrated a
roughly equal sex drive. 18

The strong human female sex drive mirrors behavior in other parts of
the animal kingdom. All female mammals come into "heat," and as
estrus emerges they actively solicit males, behavior known as female
proceptivity.

A wild female chimpanzee in estrus, for instance, will stroll up to a

male, tip her buttocks toward his nose, and pull him to his feet to
copulate. When he has finished, she copulates with almost every other
male in the community. In one laboratory environment, captive female
chimps initiated up to 85 percent of all matings. 19 Captive male
orangutans tend to fall asleep after coitus, but at the height of estrus a
female will pester a male to stay awake for a second round. And if you
have not seen the aggressive sexuality of female apes, surely you have
observed the antics of female dogs. You have to bar the door if you
want a bitch in heat to remain chaste.
This female sexual persistence makes biological sense. As Darwin

pointed out, those who breed survive. Thus it is to a female's genetic

advantage to seek sex.

In fact, it is curious that Westerners cling to the concept that men are
the seducers and women the coy, submissive recipients of male
overtures. This false notion is probably a relic of our long agricultural
past, when women were pawns in elaborate property exchanges at
marriage and their value depended on their "purity." Hence girls were
strictly chaperoned, and their sex drive was denied. Today, however,
Western women have regained their sexual freedom. Released from
the world of arranged betrothals and sexual subservience, they are
often pursuers too.

Eventually, however, the man must respond to the woman's overtures

if the liaison is to proceed. As one woman reported to Perper, "At some
point the man should get the hint and take it from there."

Men seem to sense this shift in leadership, a shift that Perper calls
initiative transfer. It normally occurs just after the couple have left the
bar. Now the male must begin his "moves"—put his arm around the
woman, kiss her, woo her into the mood for coitus. And it is
interesting how well men know their role. When Perper asked thirty-
one of his male informants to describe the pickup sequence, all but
three skipped over the initial parts—those directed by the woman.
Only one man could recall the details of who spoke first, who touched
whom when, or how either partner began to express interest in the
other. But all thirty-one men spoke at length about their own duties,
how they started to kiss, pet, and maneuver the woman into bed.

Who, then, is the hunter, who the prey, who the seducer, who the
bewitched? Clearly both partners play essential roles. If one or the
other misses an important cue, the pickup ends. When all the signals
are received and each responds correctly, the beat continues. But, like
other animals engaged in courtship, human partners must play on
time for the pickup to succeed.
American singles bars in a peculiar way resemble the singles clubs of
certain birds—the lek. Lek is a Swedish ornithological term for a

piece of ground where male and female birds meet, mix, and match.
Not many avian species copulate at a leking ground, but among them
is the North American sage grouse. In early March male sage grouse
appear at locations ranging from eastern California to Montana and
Wyoming. There, on specific patches of open meadow used yearly for
mating, each male establishes a tiny "display" territory where he
proceeds, for several hours after dawn for about six weeks, to
propagandize—strutting, preening, "booming," and puffing to
advertise his importance to passing females. 20

Female sage grouse migrate to the leking ground after the males are
settled. First a female struts through the property boundaries of these
male establishments and surveys the occupants, a process that may
take her two or three days. Then she rests inside the territory of an
individual she finds appealing. Shortly both resident and guest begin
their courting dance, adapting to each other's rhythms, parading to
show their affection before they mate.

Are the antics at cocktail parties, church socials, office luncheons,

bars, or after-hours clubs fundamentally different from the cavorting
on a leking ground? As an anthropologist, I find it difficult to ignore
the fact that people and sage grouse both set up display territories,
both exhibit mannerisms designed to pick the other up, and both move
in synchrony before they mate. Apparently nature has a few basic rules
of courtship.

The Dinner Date

Two more universal features of wooing are less subtle—food and song.
Probably no single ritual is more common to Western would-be lovers
than the "dinner date." If the man is courting, he pays— and a woman
almost instinctively knows her partner is wooing her. In fact, there is
no more widespread courtship ploy than offering food in hopes of
gaining sexual favors in exchange. Around the world men give women
presents prior to lovemaking. A fish, a piece of meat, sweets, and beer
are among the countless delicacies men have invented as offerings. 21

This ploy is not exclusive to men. Black-tipped hang flies often catch
aphids, daddy longlegs, or houseflies on the forest floor. When

a male has felled a particularly juicy prey, he exudes secretions from

an abdominal scent gland that catch the breeze, announcing a
successful hunting expedition. Often a passing female hang fly stops to
enjoy the meal—but not without copulating while she eats. Male birds
feed potential lovers too. The male common tern often brings a little
fish to his beloved. The male roadrunner presents a little lizard. Male
chimpanzees living along Lake Tanganyika, in eastern Africa, offer a
morsel of baby gazelle, hare, or some other animal they have caught
and killed. The estrous female consumes the gift, then copulates with
the donor. 22

"The way to a man's heart is through his stomach," the adage says.

Perhaps. A few female mammals do feed their lovers; women are

among them. But around the world courting women feed men with
nowhere near the regularity that men feed women. 23 And where food
is impractical or unfashionable, men give their girlfriends tobacco,
jewelry, cloth, flowers, or some other small but prized gifts as tokens
of their affection and as a mild enticement for a tryst.

"Courtship feeding," as this custom is called, probably predates the

dinosaurs, because it has an important reproductive function. By
providing food to females, males show their abilities as hunters,
providers, and worthy procreative partners.

"If music be the food of love, play on." Shakespeare elegantly played
tribute to the last primeval courting lure—melody. Singing or playing a
musical instrument to attract a mate is a common practice around the
world. Among the Hopi Indians of the American Southwest, men
traditionally sang a complex love song to an intended. So did men
among the Samoans of the western Pacific, the Chiricahua of the
American Southwest, and the Sanpoil of what is today the eastern part
of the state of Washington. An Apache man hoped to entice a girl into
the woods by serenading her with his flute, and both men and women
among the Ifugao of central Luzon, Philippines, used the lover's harp
to generate ardor in a beloved. 24

Perhaps the society most captivated by music is our own, however.

From the "ghetto blaster" radios that teenagers carry through the

streets to the loudspeakers that blare in almost every public place,

music reigns wherever men and women congregate. And when you are
invited to "his" or "her" house for dinner, you can be sure you will get
more than pizza or a steak; you will get music too.

As might be expected, the melodies of human courtship are echoed in

the songs of the animal community. Just step outdoors on a sultry
summer night to hear the din. Frogs croak. Crickets chirp. Cats howl.
Insects sing. Porcupines emit a piercing whine. Alligators bellow.
Throughout the animal kingdom, the rutting calls of males—from the
drumming air bladder of the haddock and muted rumble of the
elephant to the "chip" of a tiny gecko lizard—serve as potent courting
signs.

A few decades ago Otto Jespersen, the Danish philologist, even

speculated that early human courting sounds stimulated the evolution
of language. "Language," he said, "was born in the courting days of
mankind; the first utterances of speech I fancy to myself like
something between the nightly love-lyrics of puss upon the tiles and
the melodious love-songs of the nightingale." 25 This sounds
farfetched. There were probably several reasons why early men and
women needed advanced communication. But love songs, like national
anthems, can certainly "stir the blood."

I would like to think that courtship starts when "he" or "she" makes a
marvelous joke about an unlikable politician, an astute comment
about the world economy, or a tantalizing remark about a recent play
or sports event—something humorous, intelligent. But infatuation may
begin with the slight tilt of a head, a gaze, a gentle touch, a tender
syllable, a slab of roast beef in a fancy restaurant, or a whispered tune
during a swaying dance. Then the body rushes forward, leaving the
intellect to unravel this feeling of infatuation: "Why him?" "Why her?"

Inlatuation

M 7 Him?Why Her?

The meeting of two personalities is

like the contact of two chemical substances;

if there is any reaction,

both are transformed.

— Carl Jung

"FT

A or should I see thee a little moment, / Straight is my voice hushed; /

Yea, my tongue is broken, and through and through me, / 'Neath the
flesh, impalpable fire runs tingling." So began a poem describing
infatuation written by Sappho on the Greek island of Lesbos some
twenty-five hundred years ago. l Almost everybody knows what
infatuation feels like. That euphoria. That torment. Those sleepless
nights and restless days. Awash in ecstasy or apprehension, you
daydream during class or business, forget your coat, drive past your
turn, sit by the phone, or plan what you will say—obsessed, longing for
the next encounter with "him" or "her." Then, when you meet again,
his slightest gesture stops your pulse. Her laugh dizzies you. You take
foolish risks, say stupid things, laugh too hard, reveal dark secrets, talk
all night, walk at dawn, and often hug and kiss—oblivious to all the
world as you tumble through a fever, breathless, etherized by bliss.

Despite thousands of poems, songs, books, operas, dramas, myths,

and legends that have portrayed infatuation since before the time of
Christ, despite the countless times a man or woman has deserted
family and friends, committed suicide or homicide, or pined away
because of love, few scientists have given this passion the study it
deserves. Sigmund Freud dismissed infatuation as a blocked or
delayed sex urge. Havelock Ellis called romantic attraction "sex-plus-
friendship," an unconvincing description of this fever. And many
people assume that infatuation is a mystical, intangible, inexplicable,
even sacred experience that defies the laws of nature and the scrutiny
of science. Hundreds of academics and philosophers mention
infatuation in passing; few have tried to understand this animal
attraction to another human being.

Falling in Love

One telling dissection of this madness, however, is found in Love and

Limerence, by psychologist Dorothy Tennov. 2

In the mid-1960s Tennov devised approximately two hundred

statements about romantic love and asked four hundred men and
women at and around the University of Bridgeport, in Connecticut, to
respond with "true" or "false" reactions. Hundreds of additional
individuals answered subsequent versions of her questionnaire. From
their responses, as well as their diaries and other personal accounts,
Tennov identified a constellation of characteristics common to this
condition of "being in love," a state she calls limerence, which some
psychiatrists call attraction and I will call infatuation.

The first dramatic aspect of this condition is its inception, the moment
when another person begins to take on "special meaning." It could be
an old friend seen in a new perspective or a complete stranger, but as
one informant put it: "My whole world had been transformed. It had a
new center and that center was Marilyn."

Infatuation then develops in a characteristic pattern, beginning with

"intrusive thinking." Thoughts of the "love object," or the beloved,
begin to invade your mind. A certain thing he said rings in your ear;
you see her smile, recall a comment, a special moment, an innuendo—
and relish it. You wonder what your love would think

of the book you are reading, the movie you just saw, or the problem
you are facing at the office. And every tiny segment of the time the two
of you have spent together acquires weight and becomes material for
review.

At first these intrusive reveries occur irregularly. Some informants

reported that thoughts of their beloved invaded their consciousness
less than 5 percent of their waking hours. But many said that, as the
obsession grew, they spent from 85 to almost 100 percent of their days
and nights in sustained mental attentiveness, doting on this single
individual. Moreover, they began to focus on the most trivial aspects of
the adored one and aggrandize them in a process Tennov calls
crystallization.

Crystallization is distinct from idealization in that the infatuated

person does indeed perceive the weaknesses of his or her idol. In fact,
all of Tennov's limerent subjects could list the faults of their beloved.
But they simply cast these flaws aside or convinced themselves that
these defects were unique and charming. And they unremittingly
doted on the positive parts of their sweetheart's physical features and
personality.

Paramount in the daydreams of Tennov's infatuated informants were

two overriding sensations: hope and uncertainty. If the cherished
person gave the slightest positive response, the infatuated partner
would replay these precious fragments in reverie for days. If he or she
rebuffed one's overtures, uncertainty might turn to despair instead
and the "limerent" would moon about listlessly, brooding until he or
she had managed to explain away this setback and renew the quest.
Interestingly, a key incendiary was adversity; this always intensified
one's passion.

And underlying all of this angst and ecstasy was unmitigated fear. A
twenty-eight-year-old truck driver summed up what most informants
felt: "I'd be jumpy out of my head," he said. "It was like what you
might call stage fright, like going up in front of an audience. My hand
would be shaking when I rang the doorbell. When I called her on the
phone I felt like I could hear the pulse in my temple louder than the
ringing of the phone. . . ."
Most of Tennov's informants reported trembling, pallor, flushing, a
general weakness, and overwhelming sensations of awkwardness,

stammering, even loss of their most basic faculties and skills.

Stendhal, the nineteenth-century French novelist, described this
feeling perfectly. Recalling the afternoons he went strolling with his
sweetheart, he wrote, * 'Whenever I gave my arm to Leonore, I always
felt I was about to fall, and I had to think how to walk." 3

Shyness, fear of rejection, anticipation, and longing for reciprocity

were other central sensations of infatuation. Above all, there was the
feeling of helplessness, the sense that this passion was irrational,
involuntary, unplanned, uncontrollable. As a business executive in his
early fifties wrote to Tennov, about an office affair, T am advancing
toward the thesis that this attraction for Emily is a kind of biological,
instinct-like action that is not under voluntary or logical control. ... It
directs me. I try desperately to argue with it, to limit its influence, to
channel it (into sex, for example), to deny it, to enjoy it, and, yes,
dammit, to make her respond! Even though I know that Emily and I
have absolutely no chance of making a life together, the thought of her
is an obsession."

Infatuation, it seems, is a panoply of intense emotions, roller-

coastering from high to low, hinged to the pendulum of a single being
whose whims command you, to the detriment of everything around
you—including work, family, and friends. And this involuntary mosaic
of sensations is only partially related to sex. Ninety-five percent of
Tennov's female informants and 91 percent of her male subjects
rejected the statement 'The best thing about love is sex."

Why do we fall in love with Ray instead of Bill, Sue instead of Ceciley?
Why him? Why her? "The heart has its reasons which reason knows
nothing of," contended philosopher Blaise Pascal. Scholars can,
however, provide some "reasonable" explanations for this hurricane of
emotion.

Odor Lures
Infatuation could be triggered, in part, by one of our most primitive
traits—our sense of smell. Every person smells slightly different; we all
have a personal "odor print" as distinctive as our voice, our

hands, our intellect. As newborn infants we can recognize our mother

by her smell, and as we grow up we come to detect over ten thousand
different odors. 4 So if nature be our guide, we are probably
susceptible to odor lures.

Many creatures use odors to seduce, as was made abundantly clear to

the French naturalist Jean Henri Fabre almost a century ago. Fabre
had found a cocoon of the beautiful emperor moth. He brought it into
his country home and left it in his study overnight. The next morning a
female emerged, sparkling from metamorphosis. Fabre put her in a
cage. To his astonishment forty male emperor moths flapped through
his open window that evening to woo the virgin; over the next few
nights more than 150 males appeared. As Fabre finally established,
this female moth had exuded an invisible secretion from her distended
abdomen—a "pheromone," the smell of which had attracted suitors
from over a mile across the countryside. 5

Since the time of Fabre's experiments, the odor lures of over 250
insect species, and of many other animals, have been isolated. Some of
these smells—such as castoreum, from the scent glands of Russian and
Canadian beavers; musk, the red, jellylike pheromone of the East
Asian musk deer; and civet, a honeylike secretion from the Ethiopian
civet cat—have been worn by people as diverse as the ancient Greeks,
Hindus, and Chinese to intoxicate a sweetheart.

But the human body may produce some of the most powerful olfactory
aphrodisiacs of all. Both men and women have "apocrine" glands in
their armpits, around their nipples, and in the groin that become
active at puberty. These scent boxes differ from "eccrine" glands,
which cover much of the body and produce an odorless liquid, because
their exudate, in combination with bacteria on the skin, produce the
acrid, gamy smell of perspiration.

Baudelaire thought one's soul resided in this erotic sweat. The

nineteenth-century French novelist Joris Karl Huysmans, used to
follow women through the fields, smelling them. He wrote that the
scent of a woman's underarms "easily uncaged the animal in man."
Napoleon agreed. He reportedly sent a letter to his sweetheart,
Josephine, saying, "I will be arriving in Paris tomorrow evening. Don't
wash." 6

Today in parts of Greece and the Balkans, some men carry their
handkerchiefs in their armpits during festivals and offer these
odoriferous tokens to the women they invite to dance; they swear by
the results. In fact, sweat is used around the world as an ingredient in
love potions. In Shakespeare's day, a woman held a peeled apple under
her arm until the fruit became saturated with her scent; then she
presented this "love apple" to her lover to inhale. A contemporary
recipe concocted by some Caribbean immigrants to the United States
reads, "Prepare a hamburger patty. Steep it in your own sweat. Cook.
Serve to the person desired." 7

But could a man's smell actually trigger infatuation in a woman? This

is extremely hard to test. In 1986 Winnifred Cutler, George Preti, and
their colleagues at the Monell Chemical Senses Center, in
Philadelphia, found an intriguing relationship between women, men,
and odor. 8 They designed an experiment in which male volunteers
wore pads in their armpits several days a week. "Male essence" was
then extracted from these pads, mixed with alcohol, frozen, stored,
and then thawed and dabbed on the upper lip of women who came to
the clinic three times a week. The women reported they smelled
nothing except alcohol.

The results were startling. Some of the women entered the test with
irregular menstrual cycles, periods that were either longer or shorter
than the average 29.5 days. After twelve to fourteen weeks of
treatment, however, these women's monthly menstrual cycles became
more normal. Male essence seems to stimulate normal cycling, an
important aspect of fertility potential.

This possible link between male essence and female reproductive

health may provide a clue to attraction. Women perceive odors better
than men do. They are a hundred times more sensitive to Exalto-lide, a
compound much like men's sexual musk; 9 they can smell a mild
sweat from about three feet away; and at midcycle, during ovulation,
women can smell men's musk even more strongly. Perhaps ovulating
women become more susceptible to infatuation when they can smell
male essence and are unconsciously drawn toward it to maintain
normal menstrual cycling.

Key to Cutler and Preti's data, however, is the finding that women are
affected by male essence only when they are exposed through direct
contact with their bodies. Whether male pheromones can attract a
woman from a distance is unknown.

There is some evidence, though, that women's body smells can have a
long-distance effect on men. Over a decade ago researchers reported
that female roommates in college dorms and women who work or live
in close proximity have synchronized menstrual cycles. 10 These data
are speculative. But in other animals, estrus synchrony is caused by
odor missiles, pheromones.

Could a "female essence" cause this synchrony in women too? To find

out, Preti, Cutler, and their colleagues exposed ten women with
normal cycles to the underarm sweat of other women. 11 They used the
same technique: every few days these subjects received a dab of
women's perspiration under their nostrils. Within three months the
subjects' menstrual cycles began to coincide with the cycles of the
sweat donors. If women do indeed exude smells potent enough to
affect other women, perhaps these odors can actually intoxicate a man
across a crowded room.

His smell or her smell could spark strong physical and psychological
reactions. Between your eyes, within your skull, at the base of your
brain, some five million olfactory neurons dangle from the roof of each
nasal cavity, swaying in the air currents you inhale. These nerve cells
transmit messages to the part of the brain that controls your sense of
smell. But they also link up with the limbic system, a group of
primitive structures in the middle of your brain that govern fear, rage,
hate, ecstasy, and lust. Because of this brain wiring, smells have the
potential to create intense erotic feelings.

A woman's or a man's smell can release a host of memories too. The

limbic system contains the seat of long-term memory; thus you can
remember odors years after smelling them, whereas many visual and
auditory perceptions fade in days or weeks. A poignant literay
evocation of this odor memory occurs in Kipling's poem "Lichten-
berg," where he wrote that the smell of rain-soaked acacia trees meant
home to him. No doubt you can remember the perfume of a

Christmas tree, the family dog, even a former lover—and all the
feelings these evoke. So the right human smell at the right moment
could touch off vivid pleasant memories and possibly ignite that first,
stunning moment of romantic adoration.

But Americans, the Japanese, and many other people find body odors
offensive; for most of them the smell of perspiration is more likely to
repel than to attract. Some scientists think the Japanese are unduly
disturbed by body odors because of their long tradition of arranged
marriages; men and women were forced into close contact with
partners they found unappealing. 12 Why Americans are phobic about
natural body smells, I do not know. Perhaps our advertisers have
swayed us in order to sell their deodorizing products.

But we certainly like commercially made aromas on a mate. We buy

fragrant shampoos, scented soaps, after-shave lotions, and perfumes
at exorbitant prices. Then smells of food, fresh air, tobacco, and smells
of the office and the home all mix with our natural smells to make an
odor soup. A silent label. And people respond. In a recent survey by
the Fragrance Foundation, both men and women rated scent as an
important aspect of sex appeal—giving odor an 8.4 rating on a scale of
10. 13 Like emperor moths, human beings find smells sexually
exciting.

But cultural opinions about perspiration clearly vary. Climate, types of

clothing, access to daily bathing, concepts of cleanliness, upbringing,
and many other cultural variables condition one's appetite for odors.
Moreover, the link between human pheromones and the euphoric,
despairing state we call infatuation remains unknown.

This much I propose, however: when you meet someone new whom
you find attractive, you probably "like the smell of him," and this helps
predispose you to romance. Then, once infatuation flowers, the scent
of your sweetheart becomes an aphrodisiac, a continuing stimulant to
the love affair.

Love Maps

A more important mechanism by which human beings become

captivated by "him" or "her" may be what sexologist John Money calls
your love map. 14 Long before you fixate on Ray as opposed to Bill,

Sue instead of Ceciley, you have developed a mental map, a template

replete with brain circuitry that determines what arouses you sexually,
what drives you to fall in love with one person rather than another.

Children develop these love maps, Money thinks, between ages five
and eight (or even earlier) in response to family, friends, experiences,
and chance associations. For example, as a child you get used to the
turmoil or tranquillity in your house, the way your mother listens,
scolds, and pats you and how your father jokes or walks or smells.
Certain temperamental features of your friends and relatives strike
you as appealing; others you associate with disturbing incidents. And
gradually these memories begin to take on a pattern in your mind, a
subliminal template for what turns you off, what turns you on.

As you grow up, this unconscious map takes shape and a composite
proto-image of the ideal sweetheart gradually emerges. Then in
teenage, when sexual feelings flood the brain, these love maps solidify,
becoming "quite specific as to details of the physiognomy, build, race
and color of the ideal lover, not to mention temperament, manners
and so on/' 15 You have a mental picture of your perfect mate, the
settings you find enticing, and the kinds of conversations and erotic
activities that excite you. 16

So, long before your true love walks past you in a classroom, at a
shopping mall, or in the office, you have already constructed some
basic elements of your ideal sweetheart. Then, when you actually see
someone who fits within these parameters, you fall in love with him or
her and project onto this "love blot" your unique love map. The
recipient generally deviates considerably from your actual ideal. But
you brush aside these inconsistencies to dote on your own
construction. Hence Chaucer's famous words "Love is blynd."

These love maps vary from one individual to the next. Some people get
turned on by a business suit or a doctor's uniform, by big breasts,
small feet, or a vivacious laugh. Her voice, the way he smiles, her
connections, his patience, her spontaneity, his sense of humor, her
interests, his aspirations, her coordination, his charisma—myriad

obvious as well as tiny, subliminal elements work together to make

one person more attractive than the next. We can all list a few specific
things we find appealing; deep in our unconscious psyche are many
more.

American tastes in romantic partners show some definite patterns,

however. In a test done in the 1970s, 1,031 Caucasian college students
at the University of Wyoming rated what they found sexually
appealing. 17 Their answers confirmed what you might expect. Men
tended to prefer blondes, blue eyes, and lighter skin color, while
women liked darker men. But there were some surprises. Few men
liked very large breasts or the slender, boyish female figure, and
almost none of the women were attracted to an extremely muscular
physique. In fact, both sexes preferred the average. Too short, too tall,
too slight, too "built," too pale or dark—the extremes were weeded out.

Averageness still wins. In a more recent study, psychologists selected

thirty-two faces of American Caucasian women and, using computers,
averaged all of their features. Then they showed these composite
images to college peers. Of ninety-four photographs of real female
faces, only four were rated more appealing than these fabrications. 18

As you would guess, the world does not share the sexual ideals of
Caucasian students from Wyoming. When Europeans first emigrated
to Africa, their blond hair and white skin reminded some Africans of
albinos, regarded as hideous. The traditional Nama of southern Africa
particularly like dangling vulvar lips, so mothers conscientiously
massage the genitals of their infant daughters to make them hang
enticingly by teenage. Women in Tonga traditionally diet to stay slim,
while Siriono women of Bolivia eat continually to stay fat.

In fact, there is seemingly no end to the varieties of human body

embellishments designed to trigger infatuation: stretched necks,
molded heads, filed teeth, pierced noses, scarred breasts, scorched or
"tanned" skin, and high-heeled shoes in which women can hardly
walk, not to mention the two-foot orange gourd penis sheathes of New
Guinea tribesmen and the purple-dyed beards of distinguished
Elizabethan gentlemen. Beauty truly is in the eyes of the beholder.

But everywhere people find particular aspects of those around them

sexually appealing.

Despite wildly dissimilar standards of beauty and sex appeal, however,

there are a few widely shared opinions about what incites romantic
passion. Men and women around the world are attracted to those with
good complexions. Everywhere people are drawn to partners whom
they regard as clean. And men in most places generally prefer plump,
wide-hipped women to slim ones. 19 Looks count.

So does money. From a study of thirty-seven peoples in thirty-three

countries, the psychologist David Buss uncovered a distinct
male/female difference in sexual preferences. 20 From rural Zulus to
urban Brazilians, men are attracted to young, good-looking, spunky
women, while women are drawn to men with goods, property, or
money. Americans are no exception. Teenage girls are impressed by
boys with flashy cars, and older women like men with houses, land,
boats, or other expensive accoutrements. Hence the gentle, poetic
carpenter will probably not attract the women an insensitive rich
banker will collect.

These male/female appetites are probably innate. It is to a male's

genetic advantage to fall in love with a woman who will produce viable
offspring. Youth, clear skin, bright eyes, vibrant hair, white teeth, a
supple body, and a vivacious personality indicate good health, vitality
important to his genetic future. To women, belongings indicate power,
prestige, success, and the ability to provide. For good reason: it is to a
woman's biological advantage to become captivated by a man who can
help support her young. As Montaigne, the sixteenth-century French
essayist, summed it up, "We do not marry for ourselves, whatever we
say; we marry just as much or more for our posterity."

The Chase

But let there be mystery. A degree of unfamiliarity is essential to

infatuation; people almost never become captivated by someone they
know well—as a classic study on an Israeli kibbutz clearly

illustrates. 21 Here infants were placed in peer groups during the day
while their parents worked. Before the age of ten these children often
engaged in sexual play, but as they moved into adolescence boys and
girls became inhibited and tense with one another. Then, in teenage,
they developed strong brother-sister bonds. Almost none married
within their peer group, however. A study of 2,769 kibbutzim
marriages found that only 13 occurred between peers and that in each
of them one mate had left the communal group before the age of six.

Apparently during a critical period in childhood, most individuals lose

forever all sexual desire for those they see regularly. Mystery is critical
to romantic love.

Barriers also seem to provoke this madness. The chase. If a person is

difficult "to get" it piques one's interest. In fact, this element of
conquest is often central to infatuation, hence what has become known
as the Romeo and Juliet effect: if real impediments exist, such as the
family feud between Shakespeare's Montagues and Capulets, these
obstructions are likely to intensify one's passion. No wonder people
fall for an individual who is married, a foreigner, or someone
separated from them by an obstacle that appears almost
insurmountable. Yet generally there must also be some slight
possibility of fulfillment before one's first stirrings of infatuation
escalate into an obsession.

Timing also plays an important role in infatuation. 22 When

individuals are looking for adventure, craving to leave home, lonely,
displaced in a foreign country, passing into a new stage in life, or
financially and psychologically ready to share themselves or start a
family, they become susceptible. From her questionnaires and
interviews with over eight hundred Americans, Tennov reported that
infatuation occurred only after one had become ready to shower
attention on a love object.

Last, as a rule we are drawn to people like ourselves. Likes tend to

marry likes—individuals of the same ethnic group, with similar
physical traits and levels of education, what anthropologists call
positive assortive mating.

Infatuation generally first takes place shortly after puberty. But it can
happen at any stage in life. Children experience puppy love;

some octogenarians fall crazily in love. Once an individual becomes

receptive, though, he or she is in danger of falling in love with the next
reasonably acceptable person who comes along.

Love at First Sight

It is this constellation of factors appearing all at once —including

timing, barriers, mystery, similarities, a matched love map, even the
right smells—that make you susceptible to falling in love. Then, when
that potential love object cocks his or her head, smiles or gazes at you,
you get that rush. It can happen gradually or in a second— hence the
phenomenon of love at first sight.

And this powerful, sometimes instantaneous attraction is not unique

to Westerners.

Andreas Capellanus, a cleric at the court of Eleanor of Aquitaine in

twelfth-century France, wrote of infatuation, "Love is a certain inborn
suffering derived from the sight of and excessive meditation upon the
beauty of the opposite sex, which causes each one to wish above all
things the embraces of the other." 23 Since then some Westerners
have come to believe that romantic love is an invention of the
troubadours—those knights, poets, and romantics of eleventh- to
thirteenth-century France who waxed eloquent on the vicissitudes of
amour.

I find this preposterous. Romantic love is far more widespread.

Vatsya, the author of the Kama Sutra, the classic work on love in
Sanskrit literature, lived in India sometime between the first and sixth
century a.d., and he clearly described romantic love between men and
women. He even provided detailed instructions on how couples might
court, embrace, kiss, fondle, and copulate. Despite the Confucian
emphasis on filial piety that has long saturated Chinese mores, written
tales dating back to the seventh century a.d. reveal the agony of men
and women torn between obedience to their elders and romantic
passion for a loved one. 24 In traditional Japan, star-crossed lovers
sometimes chose double suicide, known as shin ju, when they found
themselves betrothed to different partners.

The eastern Cherokee believed that if a young man sings to a girl at

midnight, "she will dream of him, become lonesome for him and,

50 A NATOMY OF LOVE

when they next meet, be drawn irresistibly to him." Yukaghir girls of

northeast Siberia wrote 'love letters" on birch bark. In Bali, men
believed a woman would "fall in love" if her suitor fed her a certain
kind of leaf incised with the image of a god who sported a very large
penis.

Even peoples who deny having concepts of "love" or "being in love" act
otherwise. Mangaians of Polynesia are casual in their sexual affairs,
but occasionally a desperate young man who is not permitted to marry
his girlfriend kills himself. The Bern-Bern of the New Guinea
highlands do not admit that they feel this passion either, but a girl
sometimes refuses to marry the man whom her father has chosen for
her and runs away with a "true love" instead. The Tiv of Africa, who
have no formal concept of romance, call this passion "madness." 25

Love stories, myths, legends, poems, songs, instruction manuals, love

potions, love charms, lovers' quarrels, trysts, elopements, and suicides
are part of life in traditional societies around the world. In fact, in a
survey of 168 cultures, anthropologists William Jankoviak, and
Edward Fischer were able to find direct evidence for the existence of
romantic love in 87 percent of these vastly different peoples. 26

This madness, this limerence, this attraction, this infatuation, this

ecstasy so regularly ignored by scientists, must be a universal human
trait.

It is entirely possible that infatuation is not unique to people either.

What first made me suspect this was an anthropological account of a
home-raised American gorilla named Toto. Toto regularly came into
heat for about three days in the middle of her monthly menstrual
cycle; apparently she also became infatuated with human males. One
month it was the gardener, the next the chauffeur or the butler, at
whom she gazed with "unmistakable lovesick eyes." 27

Consorting lions show great tenderness for each other during the
female's period of heat. Giraffes gently caress each other before they
mate. Baboons, chimpanzees, and other higher primates show distinct
preferences for one individual rather than the next, friendships

that endure even when the female is not sexually receptive. And a pair
of elephants will spend hours side by side during the female's period of
receptivity, often stroking each other with their trunks. Many animals
pat, nuzzle, coo, and gaze at one another affectionately as they court.

The most curious story of possible infatuation in another species,

however, was reported in 1988. Newspapers carried the story of a
moose that seemed to fall in love with a cow in Vermont. 28 The
stricken herbivore trailed his idol for seventy-six days before he gave
up his amorous "come hither" gesturing. That despair, that euphoria
of infatuation, may strike more than just humankind.
Love at first sight. Could this human ability to adore another within
moments of meeting come out of nature? I think it does. In fact, love
at first sight may have a critical adaptive function among animals.
During the mating season a female squirrel, for example, needs to
breed. It is not to her advantage to copulate with a porcupine. But if
she sees a healthy squirrel, she should waste no time. She should size
him up. And if he looks suitable, she should grab her chance to
copulate. Perhaps love at first sight is no more than an inborn
tendency in many creatures that evolved to spur the mating process.
Then among our human ancestors what had been animal attraction
evolved into the human sensation of infatuation at a glance.

But how has nature actually created the bodily feeling of infatuation?
What is this thing called love?

The Chemistry of Love

People probably began to discuss attraction more than a million years

ago as they lay on riverbanks in Africa to rest and watch the sky. More-
recent thinkers have come up with astute observations about this
fever. W. H. Auden likened sexual craving to "an intolerable neural
itch/' H. L. Mencken described it differently, saying, "To be in love is
merely to be in a state of perceptual anaesthesia." Both sensed that
something physical was happening in the brain, anticipating what
could be an astonishing discovery about the chemistry of love.

This violent emotional disturbance that we call infatuation (or

attraction) may begin with a small molecule called phenylethyla-mine,
or PEA. Known as the excitant amine, PEA is a substance in the brain
that causes feelings of elation, exhilaration, and euphoria. But to
understand exactly how PEA might contribute to attraction, you need
to know a few things about the inside of your head.

The human brain is about the size of a grapefruit, weighing

approximately three pounds, with an average volume of about 1,400
cubic centimeters. It is about three times larger than those of our
closest relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas, whose average brain
volumes are approximately 400 and 500 cubic centimeters
respectively.

In the 1970s neuroscientist Paul MacLean postulated that the brain is

divided into three general sections. Actually, it is a good deal more
complex than this, but MacLean's perspective is still useful as an
overview. The most primitive section surrounds the final bulb at the
end of the spinal cord. This area, which deserves its reputation as the
"reptilian brain," governs instinctual behaviors such as aggression,
territoriality, ritual, and the establishment of social hierarchies. We
probably use this area of the brain in courtship when we "instinctively"
strut, preen, and flirt.

Above and surrounding the reptilian brain is a group of structures in

the middle of the head known collectively as the limbic system. As was
mentioned earlier, these structures govern the basic emotions— fear,
rage, joy, sadness, disgust, love, and hate. So when you are overcome
with happiness, paralyzed with fright, infuriated, revolted, or
despondent, it is portions of the limbic system that are producing
electrical and chemical disturbances. The storm of infatuation almost
certainly has its physical origin here.

Overlaying the limbic system (and separated by a large layer of white

matter that communicates between brain parts) is the cortex, a gray,
convoluted rind of spongy matter that lies directly below the skull. The
cortex processes basic functions like sight, hearing, speech, and
mathematical and musical abilities. Most important, the cortex
integrates your emotions with your thoughts. It is this section of the
brain that thinks about "him" or "her."

Here, then, is how PEA (and probably other neurochemicals, such

as norepinephrine and dopamine) may play a role. Within and

connecting the three basic parts of the brain are neurons, or nerve
cells; there are at least one hundred billion of them. Impulses travel
through one neuron and jump across a gap—a synapse—to the next
nerve cell. This way they gambol along the neuronal highways of the
mind.
PEA lies at the end of some nerve cells and helps the impulse jump
from one neuron to the next. Equally important, PEA is a natural
amphetamine; it revs up the brain. So psychiatrist Michael Liebowitz
of the New York State Psychiatric Institute speculates that we feel
infatuation when neurons in the limbic system, our emotional core,
become saturated or sensitized by PEA and/or other brain chemicals—
and stimulate the brain. 29

No wonder lovers can stay awake all night talking and caressing. No
wonder they become so absentminded, so giddy, so optimistic, so
gregarious, so full of life. Naturally occurring amphetamines have
pooled in the emotional centers of their brains; they are high on
natural "speed."

Romance Junkies

Liebowitz and his colleague Donald Klein arrived at this conclusion

while treating patients they called attraction junkies. These people
crave a relationship. In their haste they pick an unsuitable partner.
Soon they are rejected, and their exhilaration turns to despair—until
they renew their quest. As this cycle of miserable love affairs proceeds,
the romance junkie swings from feeling brokenhearted and
desperately depressed to feeling elated over each inappropriate, ill-
fated romantic fling.

Both psychiatrists suspected that these lovesick people suffered from a

tangle in their romantic wiring—specifically a craving for PEA. So in
some highly experimental work they gave these attraction junkies
MAO inhibitors. These antidepressant drugs block the action of a
special enzyme in the brain—monoamine oxidase, or MAO, a class of
substances that break down PEA and other neurotransmitters
(norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin). Thus MAO inhibitors
actually boost levels of PEA and these other natural

amphetamines, heightening the infatuation high.

To everyone's astonishment, within weeks of receiving MAO

inhibitors, one perpetually lovesick man began to choose his partners
more carefully, even starting to live comfortably without a mate.
Apparently he no longer craved the PEA high he used to get from his
exciting yet disastrous love affairs. This patient had been in therapy
for years, sessions that had helped him understand himself. "But it
appears," says Liebowitz, "that until the MAO inhibitor was
administered, he was largely unsuccessful in applying what he had
learned, because of his overriding emotional response/'

Psychiatrist Hector Sabelli independently arrived at the same

conclusion about PEA. In a study of thirty-three people who were
happily attached to a "significant other" and who reported to Sabelli
that they were feeling great, all were found to have high levels of the
PEA metabolite in their urine too. PEA levels were low in a man and
woman who were going through a divorce—probably, he says, because
both spouses were suffering from a low-grade depression as they
parted. 30

PEA seems to have a powerful effect on nonhuman creatures as well as

people. When mice are injected with PEA, they jump and squeal, a
display of mouse exhilaration known in laboratory jargon as "popcorn
behavior." Rhesus monkeys injected with PEA-like chemicals make
pleasure calls and smack their lips, a courting gesture, and baboons
press levers in their cages more than 160 times in a three-hour period
to obtain supplements that maintained a PEA high.

Auden and Mencken probably described romantic attraction astutely.

The feeling of infatuation may result from a deluge of PEA and/or
other natural stimulants that saturate the brain, transforming the
senses, altering reality.

But infatuation is more than exhilaration. It is part of love, a deep,

"mystical" devotion to another human being. Is this complex sensation
due solely to natural stimulants in the brain?

Not at all. In fact, PEA may give us no more than a generalized sense
of awakeness, alertness, excitement and an elevated mood, as Sabelli
suggests. Sabelli measured the amount of PEA released in
the urine of parachute jumpers before and after a jump. During free-
fall, PEA levels soared. A divorcing couple also experienced a PEA high
during court proceedings. 31 It appears, then, that PEA gives us no
more than a shot of exhilaration and apprehension—a chemical high
that accompanies a range of experiences, including infatuation.

Cupid's Second Arrow: Culture

Liebowitz's and Sabellfs work on the chemistry of love has caused a

great deal of controversy, not only among colleagues who, like them,
recognize that this research is still speculative, but also among those
embroiled in the old nature/nurture controversy—that perennial
debate about how much of our behavior derives from genes, from
nature and heredity, how much of human conduct stems from
childhood experiences, from culture, from what we learn.

So here I should stress a critical concept. The brain and body produce
dozens (if not hundreds) of different chemicals that affect behavior.
Adrenaline, for example, is secreted by the adrenal glands when one
gets angry, frightened, or euphoric; it makes the heart pump faster,
quickens breathing, and prepares the body for action in several other
ways. But it is not adrenaline that triggers rage, fear, or joy; it is
stimuli from the environment.

For example, a colleague at the office says something snide about your
work. You are insulted—a largely learned response. Your body secretes
adrenaline. You feel this fuel. Then your culturally conditioned mind
converts this natural energy into fury, as opposed to fear or joy. And
you shoot a caustic comment at your peer.

In the same way, culture plays a major role in love. You begin in
childhood to like and dislike the smells in your environment. You learn
to respond to certain kinds of humor. You get used to the peace or
hysteria in your home. And you begin to build your love map from
your experiences. Then, in teenage, you join the military, go away to
college, or become otherwise displaced. These and many other cultural
events determine whom you love, when you love, where you love. But
after you find that special person, it is probably PEA and/
$6 ANATOMY OF LOVE

or other natural neurochemicals in the brain that direct how you feel
as you love. As usual, culture and biology go hand in hand.

There seems to be some variation in this experience from one

individual to the next, however. Some of those who report they have
never felt romantic love suffer from hypopituitarism, a rare disease in
which the pituitary malfunctions in infancy, causing hormonal
problems—as well as "love blindness." These men and women lead
normal lives; some marry for companionship; but that rapture, that
heartache are mythology to them. 32

Tennov also found variation among the over eight hundred Americans
she polled about romance in the 1960s and 1970s. A few men and
women claimed that they had never felt infatuation, whereas others
fell in love quite frequently. But Tennov reports that the vast majority
of both genders experienced the ecstasy of romantic love— and they
felt it "in roughly equal proportions." Sexologists John Money and
Anke Ehrhardt confirm this; like Tennov, they found no gender
differences in the experience of infatuation. 33

Scientists are far from understanding this obsession. But one fact is
becoming undeniable: infatuation is a physical as well as a
psychological phenomenon. And physical mechanisms evolve through
evolution. The limbic system, the emotional core of the brain, is
rudimentary in reptiles but well developed in all mammals. So I shall
maintain in following chapters that our first ancestors inherited the
primal emotion of animal attraction and then evolved the engulfing
sensation of infatuation as they adapted to an entirely new world in
the grasslands of Africa some four million years ago.

Alas, infatuation fades. As Emerson put it, "Love is strongest in

pursuit, friendship in possession." At some point, that old black magic
wanes. For teenagers a "crush" can last a week. Lovers who see each
other irregularly, because of some barrier like an ocean or a wedding
ring from another person, can sometimes sustain that smitten feeling
for several years.
Yet there does seem to be a general length to this condition. Tennov
measured the duration of romantic love, from the moment infatuation
hit to when a "feeling of neutrality" for one's love object

began. She concluded, "The most frequent interval, as well as the

average, is between approximately 18 months and three years." John
Money agrees, proposing that once you begin to see your sweetheart
regularly the passion typically last two to three years. 34

Liebowitz suspects that the end of infatuation is also grounded in

brain physiology. He theorizes that the brain cannot eternally
maintain the revved-up state of romantic bliss. Either the nerve
endings become habituated to the brain's natural stimulants or levels
of PEA (and/or other natural amphetamine-like substances) begin to
drop. The brain can no longer tolerate the onslaught of these drugs. As
he sums it up, "If you want a situation where you and your long-term
partner can still get very excited about each other, you will have to
work on it, because in some ways you are bucking a biological tide." 35

Now an even more insidious emotion emerges—attachment. This is

the warm, comfortable, secure feeling that so many couples report.
And Liebowitz is convinced that, as infatuation wanes and attachment
grows, a new chemical system is taking over—the opiates of the mind.
These substances, the endorphins (short for "endogenous
morphines"), are chemically similar to morphine, an opiate, a narcotic.
Like PEA, the endorphins reside at the brain's nerve endings, travel
between synapses from one nerve cell to the next, and pool in specific
areas in the brain. Unlike PEA, they calm the mind, kill pain, and
reduce anxiety.

Liebowitz theorizes that partners in the attachment stage of love

trigger the production of endorphins in each other, giving each the
sense of safety, stability, tranquillity. Now lovers can talk and eat and
sleep in peace. 36

No one has speculated about how long the stage of attachment lasts,
either in the brain or in relationships. I suspect it varies with different
human brains, with social circumstances, and with age. As you will see
during the course of this book, the older you get, the easier it is to
remain attached. But the sensation of infatuation has both a beginning
and an end. As Stendhal brilliantly put it, "Love is like a fever that
comes and goes quite independently of the will."

Why does love ebb and flow? The pulse of infatuation, like many of our
courting gestures, may be part of nature's scheme—soft-wired in the
brain by time, by evolution, and by ancient patterns of human
bonding.

Oi Human Bonding

Is NlonoQamy Natural?

Breathes there a man with hide so tough Who says two sexes aren 't
enough?

— Samuel Hoffenstein

W,

hen Darwin used the term survival of the fittest he was not referring to
your good looks or your bank account; he was counting your children.
If you raise babies that have babies, you are what nature calls fit. You
have passed your genes to the next generation and in terms of survival
you have won. So the sexes are locked in a mating dance, endlessly
adjusting their moves to complement those of each other. Only in
tandem can either men or women reproduce and pass on the beat of
human life.

This mating dance—our basic human "reproductive strategy"— began

long, long ago when the world was young and our primordial ancestors
evolved into two sexes.

Why Sex?

Different species replicate differently. A few, like a variety of whip-tail

lizards, have done away with sex entirely. These little reptiles roam the
semiarid chaparral of the American Southwest. During the breeding
season, each develops eight to ten unfertilized ova, eggs that will hatch
as perfect replicas of themselves. This type of asexual reproduction—
parthenogenesis, or virgin birth—has its practical side. Whiptails do
not expend their time or energy courting one another. They do not mix
their genes with those of other whiptails, individuals that may have
inferior genetic makeups. They don't have to haul about heavy antlers
like male elk to fight other courters, or outlandish tail feathers like
male peacocks to woo females. They don't even attract predators as
they court or copulate. And they produce offspring that carry 100
percent of their DNA.

Is love between the sexes necessary? Not for desert-grassland

whiptails, some dandelions, blackberries, quaking aspen trees, or the
asexual wild grasses. For these species, even mating has been
dispensed with. 1

Despite the enormous Darwinian advantages of asexuality, however,

our ancestors and many other creatures went the way of sexual
reproduction—for at least two reasons. Individuals who mate create
one vital asset in their offspring: variety. A collie and a poodle may
produce a puppy that looks nothing like either of its parents. This can
have bad consequences; sometimes mixture produces a poor match.
But recombination creates new genetic "personalities." Some will die.
But some will live and overcome nature's tireless effort to weed out
poor strains.

Recently biologists proposed a more subtle explanation for why our

primitive forebears evolved sexual reproduction: to confuse enemies. 2
This is known as the Red Queen hypothesis, after an incident in Lewis
Carroll's book Through the Looking Glass.

The Red Queen takes Alice by the arm, and together they run madly,
hand in hand. But when they stop, they are exactly where they started.
The Queen explains this bizarre situation to Alice, saying, "Now here,
you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."
Translated into evolutionary thinking, this
Of Human Bonding

means that creatures that change regularly remain biologically less

susceptible to the bacteria, viruses, and other parasites that kill them.
Thus sexual reproduction evolved to elude one's germs. 3

But why two sexes, males and females? Why didn't our primeval
progenitors choose a reproductive strategy in which any individual
could exchange its genetic material with that of any other?

Bacteria do this. Organisms simply come together and exchange DNA.

A can mate with B; B can mate with C; C can mate with A; everybody
can mate with everybody else; bacteria have no sexual distinctions. 4
Unlike bacteria, however, the remote ancestors of human beings (and
many other creatures) developed into two distinct types: females with
big, sluggish eggs composed of DNA and rich, surrounding nutriments
and males with little, agile sperm stripped bare of all but genes.

No one knows how two separate sexes evolved in the primordial goo.
One suggestion is that our first sexual ancestors somewhat resembled
bacteria but were larger, multicellular life forms that produced sex
cells (gametes) containing half their DNA. Like bacteria, each
individual produced gametes that could combine with any other
gamete. But some organisms disseminated big gametes surrounded by
a lot of nutritious cytoplasm. Others sprayed forth smaller sex cells
with less fodder. Still others propelled tiny gametes with almost no
added food aboard.

All of these sexual creatures cast their sex cells into the ocean currents.
When two small gametes united, however, they lacked enough
nutriments to survive. When two big sex cells joined, they were too
ungainly to live on. But when a lithe, little, unencumbered gamete, a
proto-sperm, united with a big, nutrient-laden gamete, a proto-egg,
the new organism lived through its precarious beginning. And with
time two separate sexes evolved, one carrying eggs, the other
transporting sperm. 5

There are problems with this theory, as well as alternative hypotheses.

6 And, regrettably, there are no living organisms that portray the
lifeways of our first sexual ancestors. But somehow, billions of years
ago, individuals of two complementary strains developed. Then two
separate sexes emerged. And their continually varying offspring lived
and multiplied across the eons of our restless, changing past.

ANATOMY OF LOVE

Sexual Paths Our Ancestors Overlooked

It is a wonder our rude antecedents did not opt for the sex life of
strawberries—creatures that, like the little whiptail lizard, can
reproduce asexually but also engage in sexual mating. When
strawberries feel secure, the patch is unexploited, and the
environment is unchanging, they clone. Why bother with sex? Only
when space runs out, forcing strawberries to disperse into uncharted
lands, do they put forth flowers and mate. When the pioneer berries
settle in, however, they start to clone again.

Earthworms have another variation of sexuality. These creatures are

both male and female at the same time; they can impregnate
themselves. But most hermaphroditic plants and animals go to great
lengths to avoid self-fertilization, a process that has the deficits of both
sexuality and asexuality.

Perhaps the most eccentric form of reproduction, by human

standards, exists in species in which individuals are able to transform
themselves from one sex into the other. Among these are fish that live
along the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. Known as cleaner fish, or
Labroides dimidiatus, these reef combers live in groups of one male
and five or six females. If the single male dies or disappears, the most
dominant female begins to metamorphose into a male. Within a few
days "she" is "he."

If men and women were able to clone themselves, if we could be both

sexes simultaneously, or if we could totally transform ourselves within
hours from one sex into the other, we probably would not have evolved
our courting gaze, our flirting brow, or the brain physiology for
infatuation and attachment. But the ancestors of human beings, like
the vast majority of other living species, did not elect the sex lives of
cloning strawberries, hermaphroditic earthworms or transsexual fish.
Instead, we became men and women, subspecies that must mix our
genes or slip into oblivion.

Copulation is not the only way that you and I ensure our genetic
futures. A second means by which sexual organisms propagate their

DNA is a process known as kin selection. 7 This is derived from a

reality of nature: every individual shares his or her genetic makeup
with blood relatives. From the mother the child receives half its genes;
from the father, the other half. If a child has full brothers or sisters, it
shares half its genes with each of them. One-eighth of its genes it
shares with cousins, and so forth. So if a man or woman spends a
lifetime nurturing genetic relatives, he or she is actually helping his or
her own DNA; when kin survive, you survive—hence the concept of
"inclusive fitness." 8 No wonder people around the world tend to favor
their genetic kin.

Our surest way to posterity, however, is through mating. In fact, all of

our human rituals concerning courtship and mating, marriage and
divorce, can be regarded as scripts by which men and women seduce
each other in order to replicate themselves—what biologists call
reproductive strategies. What are these mating games?

Well, men have two choices, as do women, and the elegance of each is
that it is easily distinguished by counting heads. A man can mate with
a single woman at a time, monogyny (from the Greek mono, "one,"
and gyny, "female), or he can have several mates simultaneously,
polygyny (many women). Women have two similar options: monandry
(one man) or polyandry (many men). These terms are commonly used
to describe human marriage types. Thus the dictionary defines
monogyny as "the state or custom of having only one wife at a time,"
monandry as "one husband," polygyny as "many wives," and
polyandry as "many husbands." Monogamy means "one spouse";
polygamy connotes "many spouses" without designating gender. 9
Hence monogamy does not imply fidelity.

This is important to remember: the word monogamy is regularly

misused. The Oxford English Dictionary defines monogamy as "the
condition, rule or custom of being married to only one person at a
time." This does not suggest that partners are sexually faithful to one
another. Zoologists James Wittenberger and Ronald Tilson use the
term monogamy to refer to "a prolonged association and essentially
exclusive mating relationship between one male and one female." 10

But fidelity is not central to this scientific definition either. They add,
"By 'essentially exclusive' we imply that occasional covert mat-ings
outside the pair bond, (i.e. 'cheating') do not negate the existence of
monogamy."

So monogamy and fidelity are not synonymous. What is more,

adultery often goes hand in hand with monogamy, as well as with the
other reproductive strategies mentioned here. 11

Nature's Peyton Place

Male red-winged blackbirds, for example, oversee large territories of

marsh during the breeding season; several females join a single male
on his patch of real estate and copulate with only him—monandry. Or
so the story goes. Recently scientists vasectomized some of these
males prior to the breeding season. 12 Females then joined these
neutered males, copulated with them, and nested in their home ranges
—nothing unusual.

Many of these females laid fertile clutches, though. Clearly these

monandrous females had not been sexually faithful to their partners.
To be positive of this, scientists took blood samples from the infant
nestlings of thirty-one female red-winged blackbirds. Almost half of all
nests contained one or more chicks whose father was not the landlord.
Most of these females had copulated with "floaters" or with a male that
lived next door. 13

Adultery is common in other species too. Ornithologists have observed

these extrapair copulations, or "sneakers," in over one hundred species
of monogamous birds. The little South American monkeys, female
marmosets and tamarins, as well as many other monogamous female
mammals once thought to be paragons of virtue, also "cheat." The
marshes, the meadows, the forests across the earth may be nature's
Peyton Place.

And if you have missed the combination of monogamy and cheating in

red-winged black birds or marmosets, surely you have noticed
philandering in people. All married men and women in the United
States are, by definition, monogamous; bigamy is against the law.
According to some recent estimates, over 50 percent of all married
Americans are adulterous as well. 14 No one knows how accurate

these figures are. But no one would deny that adultery occurs in every
culture around the world.

So here's the point. Men in some cultures have only one wife, while
some men in other societies have a harem; some women marry only
one man at a time, while others have several husbands simultaneously.
But marriage is only part of our human reproductive strategy;
extramarital sex is often a secondary, complementary component of
our mixed mating tactics. However, before I explore the amorphous
tangle of human adultery, I would like to examine the human mating
patterns that are quite visible—our marriage systems. 15

Perhaps the most remarkable thing the sexes have in common is that
they bother to marry at all. Marriage is a cultural universal; it
predominates in every society in the world. Over 90 percent of all
American men and women marry; modern census records go back to
the mid-i8oos. 16 From church ledgers, court records, mortuary lists,
and marriage files of ninety-seven industrial and agricultural societies,
the Statistical Office of the United Nations has culled data on
weddings since the 1940s. Between 1972 and 1981 an average of 93.1
percent of the women and 91.8 percent of the men married by age
forty-nine. 17

Marriage is also the norm where record keepers have not arrived.
Among the Cashinahua Indians of Brazil, marriage is a casual affair.
When a teenage girl becomes eager to marry and gets her father's
permission, she asks her husband-to-be to visit her in her hammock
after the family is asleep. He must be gone by daybreak. Gradually he
moves his possessions into the family home. But the marriage is not
taken seriously until the girl becomes pregnant or the liaison has
lasted at least a year. In contrast, Hindu parents in India sometimes
pick a husband for their daughter before the child can walk. There are
several separate wedding rites. And long after the marriage has been
consummated, the families of the bride and groom continue to
exchange property according to terms negotiated years before.

Marriage customs vary. But from the steppes of Asia to the coral atolls
of the western Pacific, the vast majority of men and women

take a spouse. In fact, in all traditional societies marriage marks a

critical step into adulthood; spinsters and bachelors are rare.

What are the marriage strategies of men and women? Although I will
maintain that monogamy, or pair-bonding, is the hallmark of the
human animal, there is no question that a minority of men and women
follow other sexual scripts. Men are the more variable of the genders,
so let's begin with them.

Harem Building

"Hogamus, higamus, men are polygamous." So the ditty goes. Only 16

percent of the 853 cultures on record actually prescribe monogyny, in
which a man is permitted only one wife at a time. 18 Western cultures
are among them. We are in the minority, however. A whopping 84
percent of all human societies permit a man tc take more than one wife
at once—polygyny.

Although anthropologists have used a lot of ink and paper to describe

cultural reasons for the widespread permissibility of harem building, it
can be explained by a simple principle of nature: polygyny has
tremendous genetic payoffs for men. 19
The most successful harem builder on record was Moulay Ismail the
Bloodthirsty, an emperor of Morocco. The Guinness Book of World
Records reports that Ismail sired 888 children with his many wives.
But even Ismail may have been surpassed. Some "hardworking"
Chinese emperors copulated with over a thousand women, all carefully
rotated through the royal bedroom when they were most likely to
conceive. These privileged heads of state are not the only men to
experience harem life, however. Polygyny is exceedingly common in
some West African societies, where about 25 percent of all older men
have two or three wives at once.

The most colorful example of harem building, by Western standards,

is the traditional Tiwi, who live on Melville Island, about twenty-five
miles off the northern coast of Australia.

In this gerontocracy, custom dictated that all women be married—even

those not yet conceived. So after her first menstruation, a pubescent
girl emerged from temporary isolation in the bush to greet her father
and her future son -in-law. As soon as she saw these

men, she lay in the grass and pretended to be asleep. Carefully her
father placed a wooden spear between her legs; then he handed this
ceremonial weapon to his companion, who stroked it, hugged it, and
called it wife. With this simple ceremony, her father's friend—a man in
his thirties—had just married all of the unborn daughters this teenage
girl would someday bear.

Because men were betrothed to babies not yet conceived, boys had to
wait until their mid-forties to make love to their pubescent wives.
Young men had sex, of course; sweethearts sneaked into the bush
together all the time. But young men craved the prestige and power
that marriage brought. So they learned to wheel and deal, bartering
promises, food, and labor for wealth and potential wives in later life.
Then, as they accumulated spouses and begot children, men gained
control of their daughters' unborn daughters—whom they proceeded
to marry off to their friends in exchange for even more potential wives.
20 By his seventieth birthday, a very rich and clever Tiwi gentleman
might have collected as many as ten brides, although most had far
fewer.

This traditional Tiwi marriage system worked before the coming of the
Europeans. Because of the great age difference between spouses, men
and women married several times. Women liked choosing new young
husbands as they got older. Men and older women savored the wits
and bargaining it took to manipulate marriage negotiations. And the
Tiwi said that everybody enjoyed the sexual variety.

Women in most societies try to prevent their husbands from taking a

junior spouse, although they are less reluctant to accept a younger
sister as a co-wife. Nor do women want to be a junior wife. Apart from
the chronic jealousy and battles for attention, women married to the
same man tend to war with one another over food and the other
resources their mutual husband provides. There comes a point,
however, when a woman becomes willing to join a harem—a Rubicon
known as the polygyny threshold. 21

This occurred among the Blackfoot Indians of the northern plains of

North America at the end of the nineteenth century. By this time

warfare had become chronic and casualties were enormous, so eligible

Blackfoot men were in short supply. Women needed husbands. At the
same time, men needed extra wives. The horses and guns they had
acquired from the Europeans enabled these Indians to kill many more
buffalo than they had been able to kill on foot with bows and arrows.
Successful hunters needed extra hands to tan these hides— the
backbone of their trading power. This tipped the balance; unwed girls
preferred being the second wife of a rich man to being the only wife of
a poor one or a woman with no spouse at all. 22

Polygyny also occurs in the United States. Although harem building is

illegal here, some Mormon men take several wives for religious
reasons. Their forefathers in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, founded in 1831 by Joseph Smith, originally held that men
should take more than one wife. And although the Mormon church
officially turned away from polygyny in 1890, some devout
fundamentalist Mormons still practice plural marriages. Not
surprisingly, many of these polygynous Mormon men are also rich. 23

If polygyny were permitted in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, an

Episcopalian man with $200 million could probably also attract
several women willing to share his love—and his cash. 24

So men seek polygyny to spread their genes, while women join harems
to acquire resources and ensure the survival of their young. But it is
important to remember that these are not conscious motivations. If
you ask a man why he wants a second bride, he might say he is
attracted to her wit, her business acumen, her vivacious spirit, or
splendid thighs. If you ask a women why she is willing to "share" a
man, she might tell you that she loves the way he looks or laughs or
takes her to fancy vacation spots.

But no matter what reasons people offer, polygyny enables men to

have more children; under the right conditions women also reap
reproductive benefits. So long ago ancestral men who sought polygyny
and ancestral women who acquiesced to harem life disproportionately
survived, selecting for this unconscious motivation. No wonder
harems crop up where they can.

Man: A Monogamous Primate

Because of the genetic advantages of polygyny for men and because so

many societies permit polygyny, many anthropologists think that
harem building is a badge of the human animal. I cannot agree.
Certainly it is a secondary opportunistic reproductive strategy. But in
the vast majority of societies where polygyny is permitted, only about
5 to 10 percent of men actually have several wives simultaneously. 25
Although polygyny is widely discussed, it is much less practiced.

In fact, after surveying 250 cultures, anthropologist George Peter

Murdock summarized the controversy: "An impartial observer
employing the criterion of numerical preponderance, consequently,
would be compelled to characterize nearly every known human society
as monogamous, despite the preference for and frequency of polygyny
in the overwhelming majority." 26 Around the world men tend to
marry one woman at a time.

"Higamus, hogamus, women monogamous." Indeed, women also tend

to take a single spouse—monandry. All women in so-called
monogamous societies have only one husband at a time; they never
have two spouses simultaneously. In so-called polygynous societies, a
woman also marries only one man at a time, despite the fact that she
may have co-wives. Because women in 99.5 percent of cultures around
the world marry only one man at once, it is fair to conclude that
monandry, one spouse, is the overwhelmingly predominant marriage
pattern for the human female.

This is not to suggest that women never have a harem of men.

Polyandry is rare; only 0.5 percent of all societies permit a woman to
take several husbands simultaneously. 27 But it does occur under
peculiar circumstances—such as when the women are very rich.

The Tlingit Indians of southern Alaska were wealthy before the

Europeans arrived. They lived, as they do today, along the coast of one
of the most abundant fishing grounds in the world, the Alaskan
archipelago. During the summer months Tlingit men fished for

salmon and trapped myriad animals in the woods along the shore.
Women joined their husbands at summer fishing and hunting camps,
collected berries and wild plants, and converted the catch into dried
fish, rich oils, smoked meats, pelts, and valuable trade items of wood
and shell. Then, in the autumn, men and women went on trading
expeditions along the coast.

But commerce among the Tlingit was fundamentally different from

that of Europeans. Women were the traders. Women set the prices,
women did the bargaining, women finalized transactions, and women
pocketed the gains. Women were often high ranking. 28 And it was not
uncommon for a wealthy woman to have two husbands.

Polyandry also occurs in the Himalayas, for a different ecological

reason. Well-to-do Tibetan families in the highlands of Limi, Nepal,
are determined to keep their estates together; if they divide their
landholdings among their heirs, the precious property will lose its
value. Besides, parents need several sons to work the soil, herd the
cattle, yak, and goats, and work for overlords. So if a couple bear
several sons, they coax these boys to share a wife. From the woman's
perspective this is polyandry.

Not surprisingly, these co-husbands have problems with one another.

Brothers are often of different ages, and a wife of twenty-two may find
her fifteen-year-old husband immature and her twenty-seven-year-old
spouse sexually exciting. Younger brothers endure the sexual
favoritism in order to remain on the family land, however, surrounded
by the jewels, the rugs, the horses—the good life. But resentments
fester.

Polyandry is rare in people as well as in other creatures, for a good

biological reason. 29 Female birds and mammals can bear only a
limited number of offspring during their lives. Gestation takes time.
The young often require additional care before weaning. And females
have distinct intervals between successive births. Women, for
example, cannot bear more than about twenty-five children during a
lifetime. The record is held by a Russian woman who had sixty-nine
babies, mostly multiple births, during the course of twenty-seven
pregnancies. But this is phenomenal. Most women in

gathering-hunting cultures bear no more than about five infants. 30

Polyandry may help a woman's young survive, but it does not help a
woman bear more than a limited number of infants.

For men, polyandry can spell genetic suicide. Male mammals do not
go through pregnancy; nor do they lactate. So like the ancient Chinese
emperors, all men can have thousands of offspring—if they can get a
parade of cooperative partners and withstand sexual exhaustion.
Hence if a man joins the harem of a single woman, much of his sperm
is wasted.

Horde Living

Even rarer than polyandry is "group marriage/' polygynandry, from

the Greek meaning "many females males." This sexual tactic deserves
mention not because of its frequency but because it reveals the single
most important point about human bonding.

You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of peoples that
practice group marriage. Among them are the Pahari, a tribe in
northern India. There wives are so expensive that two brothers
sometimes have to pool their money to pay the "bride price" to a girl's
father. She marries both at once. Then, if the brothers become
prosperous, they purchase a second bride. Apparently both wives
make love to both husbands. 31

Group wedlock also occurs in the United States in sex communes that
crop up decade after decade. 32 But the classic example is the Oneida
community—and what went on at this colony illustrates the most
essential point about our human mating game.

This avant-garde colony was started in the 1830s by a religious zealot,

John Humphrey Noyes, a daring and sexually energetic man who
wished to create a Christian, communist utopia. 33 In 1847 his
community settled in Oneida, New York, where it functioned until
1881. In its heyday over five hundred women, men, and children
worked the communal lands and manufactured the steel traps they
sold to the outside world. Everyone lived in one building, Mansion
House, which still stands. Each adult had his or her own room. But
everything else was shared, including the children they brought into
the commune, their clothes, and their sex partners.

Noyes ruled. Romantic love for a particular person was considered

selfish, shameful. Men were forbidden to ejaculate unless their
partners had passed menopause. No children were to be born. And
everybody was supposed to copulate with everybody else.

In 1868 Noyes lifted the ban on reproducing, and, by special

permission, several women conceived. Noyes and his son sired twelve
of the sixty-two children born within the next few years. But there was
growing friction among community members. The younger men were
expected to have sex with the older women, while Noyes had first
claim to the pubescent girls. In 1879 the men revolted and accused
Noyes of raping several young women. He fled. Within months the
community disbanded.

Most interesting about the Oneida sexual experiment is this: despite

his dictatorial regulations Noyes was never able to keep men and
women from falling in love and forming clandestine pair-bonds with
one another. Attraction between people was more powerful than his
decrees. In fact, no Western experiment in group marriage has
managed to thrive for more than a few years. As Margaret Mead put it,
"No matter how many communes anybody invents, the family always
creeps back." 34 The human animal seems to be psychologically built
to form a pair-bond with a single mate.

Is monogamy natural?

Yes.

There certainly are exceptions. Given the opportunity, men often opt
for multiple spouses to further their genetic lines. Polygyny is also
natural. Women join harems when the resources they can garner
outweigh the disadvantages. Polyandry is natural. But co-wives fight.
Co-husbands argue too. Both men and women have to be cajoled by
riches to share a spouse. Whereas gorillas, horses, and animals of
many other species always form harems, among human beings
polygyny and polyandry seem to be optional opportunistic exceptions;
monogamy is the rule. 35 Human beings almost never have to be
cajoled into pairing. Instead, we do this naturally. We flirt. We feel
infatuation. We fall in love. We marry. And the vast majority of us
marry only one person at a time.

Pair-bonding is a trademark of the human animal.

Arranged Love

This is not to suggest that all wives and husbands are infatuated with
each other when they wed. In most traditional societies the first
marriage of a son or daughter is arranged. 36 Where marriage has
been a family's means of making alliances—for example, among many
traditional peoples who farmed in Europe and North Africa, as well as
in preindustrial India, China, and Japan—a young couple might not
even meet until their wedding night. But in the vast majority of
cultures, the views of both the boy and girl are sought before wedding
plans proceed.

Modern Egyptians provide a good example. Parents of potential

spouses design a meeting between the youths; if the two like each
other, parents begin to plan the marriage. Even in New York City,
traditional Chinese, Korean, Russian-Jewish, West Indian, and Arab
parents often introduce their sons or daughters to appropriate
partners and encourage them to wed.

Interestingly, many of these people fall in love. This is well

documented in India. Hindu children are taught that marital love is
the essence of life. So men and women often enter married life
enthusiastically, expecting a romance to blossom. Indeed romance
often does. As the Hindus explain it, "First we marry, then we fall in
love." 37 I am not surprised. Since love can be triggered by a single
glance in a single moment, no wonder some of these arranged
courtships rapidly turn into romantic attachments.

So where are we? The basic human reproductive strategy is

monogamy, one spouse, although human beings sometimes live in
harems. But you can't kill romantic love. Even where men and women
live with several spouses simultaneously, individuals generally have
one partner that they prefer. In free sex communes men and women
tend to pair up. Even where marriages are strictly arranged and
romantic attachments are prohibited, love blossoms—as the novel The
Family, by Pa Chin, powerfully illustrates.

Chin wrote about life in a traditional Chinese household in the 1930s.

Teetering between the ancient Chinese concept of filial piety

and modern values of individualism, the young sons of a tyrannical old

man struggle to make life meaningful. The eldest accepts his fate and
his arranged marriage. But daily he pines for his beloved, a sweetheart
who dies of unrequited love for him. The family's chambermaid hurls
herself into a lake and drowns; she is of the wrong station to marry the
son she loves and wants to avoid an arranged marriage with a hideous
old man. The youngest son steals out of the family compound by
moonlight to seek fulfillment in one of the freer cities of Westernizing
China. All the while, the patriarch dines with his concubine, a woman
he fell in love with years before.

For hundreds of years Chinese tradition tried to curb infatuation. Fate,

resignation, and obedience were drummed into the young. And the
most painful of all the world's fashions—the thousand-year-old
practice of foot-binding—kept a young wife at her loom, preventing
her from fleeing her husband's house. Today, however, the Chinese
have begun to shed their custom of arranged marriages. More and
more are buying pulpy romance novels, playing sentimental tunes,
dating, divorcing partners they never loved, and choosing spouses for
themselves. They call their new convention "free love."

Taboos, myths, rituals, myriad cultural inventions coax the young

around the world into arranged marriages. Yet where these marriages
can be dissolved, as in New Guinea, on atolls in the Pacific, in much of
Africa and Amazonia, people regularly divorce and remarry mates they
choose themselves. To court, to fall in love, to form a pair-bond is
human nature.

Why are some of us sexually unfaithful to our vows?

Why Adultery?

The Nature ol Philandering

That we can call these delicate creatures ours,

And not their appetites. I had rather be a toad,

And live upon the vapor of a dungeon,

Than keep a corner in the thing I love

For others' uses.

— William Shakespeare, Othello

A,

.long the southern Adriatic coast, the flat Italian beaches are broken by
rocky hills that descend into the sea. Here, behind the boulders, in
secluded caverns with shallow pools and sandy shoals, young Italian
men seduce foreign women they pick up in the resort hotels, on the
beaches, and in the bars and discos. Here the boys lose their virginity
in their late teens, and here they hone their sexual skills, count their
conquests, and build their reputations as dexterous, passionate Italian
lovers, personas they will cultivate throughout their lives.

Because local Italian girls are too supervised to be enticed and because
prostitution is not practiced in these villages, young men are
dependent on the seasonal tourist trade for their sexual education
until they wed. But by middle age, these men enter a new network of
sexual liaisons, an elaborate quasi-institutionalized system of ex-

tramarital affairs with local village women. With time each

philanderer learns to exercise discretion and follow strict rules that
everybody understands.

As psychologist Lewis Diana reports, adultery is the rule rather than

the exception in these towns that dot the central and southern Adriatic
coast; almost every man has a lover he visits regularly during
weekdays, either late in the morning or in the early evening while
husbands are still at work in the vineyards, on fishing boats, in their
retail shops, or off on their own clandestine business.

Generally middle- and upper-class men have long affairs with married
women of the same or lower social standing. Sometimes younger male
servants visit the wives of landowners, while prestigious men
occasionally have trysts with their maids or cooks. But the most
enduring relationships are those between men and women who are
married to others; many of these affairs last for several years or even
life.

The only dalliances that are taboo are those between older, unattached
women and young, unmarried men—largely because young men boast.
Gossip is intolerable. In these villages, family is still the warp and weft
of social life, and whispering threatens to expose the network of
extramarital relationships, seriously disrupting community cohesion
and destroying family life. So although infidelity is commonplace
among adults—and known to most because of the lack of privacy—a
code of absolute silence prevails. Family life must not be undermined.

One breach of this collective complicity occurred when a retired Italian

businessman who had lived in America since childhood made a
comment in a men's club about a woman he hoped to lure into a sexual
rendezvous. All listeners immediately fell silent. Then, one by one,
each man rose and walked out. As Diana reports, 'The man had pulled
a monumental blunder. No married man ever speaks of his interest in
other women. The taboo is stringent and unbreakable. Life is difficult
enough not to jeopardize one of its rare diversions." 1

An ocean away in Amazonia extramarital affairs are equally coveted—

but much more complex. Among the Kuikuru, a group of

about 160 people who live in a single village along the Xingu River in
the jungles of Brazil, men and women often marry shortly after
puberty. But sometimes, within months of matrimony, both spouses
begin to take lovers known as ajois. 2

Ajois get their friends to arrange their assignations; then they stroll
out of the communal compound at the planned moment under the
pretense of fetching water, bathing, fishing, or going to tend the
garden. Instead, sweethearts rendezvous and sneak off to a distant
clearing in the forest, where they talk, exchange small gifts, and
copulate. Even the oldest Kuikuru man and woman in the village
regularly slip away for an afternoon rendezvous, says anthropologist
Robert Carneiro. Most villagers have between four and twelve extra
lovers at a time.

Unlike the men of coastal Italy, however, the Kuikuru enjoy discussing
these affairs. Even small children can rattle off the lattice of ajois
relationships, much as American youngsters recite their ABCs. Only
husband and wife refrain from speaking of their outside sexual
adventures with one another, largely because once faced with the facts,
a spouse might feel obliged to confront the offending party publicly, a
disruption and embarrassment that all wish to avoid. If a woman
flaunts her friendship with a paramour, however, or spends so much
time outside the village that she neglects her daily chores, a husband
sometimes does get irritated. Then a public argument erupts. But the
Kuikuru consider sexual freedom normal; retribution for adultery is
rare.

Dozens of ethnographic studies, not to mention countless works of

history and fiction, testify to the prevalence of extramarital sexual
activities among men and women around the world. 3 Although we
flirt, fall in love, and marry, human beings also tend to be sexually
unfaithful to a spouse. So this chapter explores this second aspect of
our human reproductive strategy—how clandestine relationships vary;
why adultery evolved.

The Many Faces of Adultery

The Turu of Tanzania enjoy sexual license during the puberty

ceremony of their teenage boys. On the first day's festivities,
extramarital

lovers dance to imitate intercourse and sing songs extolling the penis,
vagina, and copulation. If these dances are not "hot," or full of sexual
passion, as the Turu say, the celebration will be a failure. That evening
sweethearts consummate what they have suggested all day. 4 Closer to
home, the festival of Mardi Gras has an air of sexual license too.

Wife lending, known as wife hospitality, is customary among several

Inuit (Eskimo) peoples. This form of adultery stems from their concept
of kinship. If a husband is eager to cement his ties with a hunting
companion, he may offer the sexual services of his wife— but only with
her permission. If all agree, she copulates with this business partner
for several days or even weeks. Women also offer sex to visitors and
strangers. But Inuit women see these extramarital couplings as
precious offerings of everlasting kinship, not as social indiscretions. 5

Perhaps the most curious custom prescribing overt adultery comes

from our Western heritage. In several European societies, a feudal lord
had the right to deflower the bride of a vassal on his wedding night—a
custom known as the jus primae noctis, or "right of the first night."
Some historians question whether this rite was widely exercised; but
there seems to be some evidence that medieval Scottish nobles did
indeed bed their subjects' brides. 6

Which raises the question: What constitutes adultery? Definitions

vary. The Lozi of Africa do not associate adultery with intercourse. The
Lozi say that if a man accompanies a married woman he is not related
to as she walks along a path, or if he gives her a beer or some snuff, he
has committed adultery. This sounds farfetched. But Americans do not
always associate adultery with intercourse either. If an American
businessman finds himself in a foreign city buying dinner for an
attractive colleague and then performing every sexual act with her
except copulation, he might think that he has been adulterous—
despite the lack of coitus. In fact, in a poll taken by People magazine in
1986, some 74 percent of the 750 respondents believed that one does
not actually need to engage in intercourse to be unfaithful. 7

Among the Kofyar of Nigeria, people define adultery quite differently.

A woman who is dissatisfied with her husband but does not

wish to divorce can take a legitimate extra lover who lives openly with
her in her husband's homestead. Kofyar men are permitted the same
privilege. And no one regards these extramarital relationships as
adultery.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines adultery as sexual intercourse

by a married person with someone other than one's spouse. So, by
Western standards, the Italian man, the Eskimo woman, and the
Kofyar wife who have engaged extra lovers are committing adultery,
while the Lozi husband and the married American who bought a
woman a drink, perhaps even reached orgasm with her—but did not
have coitus—have not philandered. Cultural mores do indeed affect
one's definition of and attitude toward adultery.

This is nowhere more evident than in all agricultural societies where

people use the plow (rather than the hoe) to grow crops— cultures
such as the traditional Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, and pre-industrial
European. In these patriarchal societies adultery was not a term even
regularly applied to men; it was considered largely a female vice.

The sexual double standard for adultery arose in farming cultures in

tandem with the belief that the male was the bearer of the family
"seed." It was his duty to reproduce and pass on his lineage. But only
in India were men supposed to be faithful to their brides. Throughout
much of Asia, husbands were encouraged to have concubines. 8 In
China, where a man could have only a single legal wife, concubines
were often taken into the family compound and given private
apartments, luxuries, and attention. Moreover, these women were
treated with much more respect than is a mistress in the West today—
largely because concubines served an important purpose, to bear sons.
And because their children supplied the blood of the patrilineage, all
infants born out of wedlock in China were considered legitimate.

A traditional Chinese or Japanese man could be branded as adulterous

only if he slept with the wife of another man. This was taboo. Illicit sex
with a married woman was a violation against the woman's husband
and his entire ancestry. In China these lawbreakers were burned to
death. If a man seduced the wife of his guru in India, he might be
made to sit on an iron plate that was glowing hot, then

chop off his own penis. A Japanese man's only honorable course was
suicide. In traditional Asian agricultural societies, only geishas,
prostitutes, slaves, and concubines were fair game. Sex with them was
simply not considered adultery.

A woman's sexual rights in traditional India, China, and Japan were an

entirely different matter. A woman's worth was measured in two ways:
her ability to increase her husband's property and prestige with the
dowry she brought into the marriage and her womb's capacity to
nurture her husband's seed. Because a woman's responsibility in life
was to produce descendants for her mate, she had to be chaste at
marriage and sexually faithful to her husband all her life—paternity
had to be secure so as not to jeopardize her husband's family line. As a
result, a respectable girl was often married off by age fourteen, before
she succumbed to clandestine suitors. Then she was tethered to her
husband's home under lifelong surveillance by his kin.

And extramarital sex was strictly forbidden to women. An unfaithful

wife was not fit to live. A Hindu man could kill an adulterous spouse.
In China and Japan a guilty woman was expected to kill herself
instead. In these patriarchial societies, a promiscuous wife threatened
a man's land, his wealth, his name, his status. Both his ancestors and
his descendants were at risk.

This same double standard for adultery was first recorded among the
forebears of Western civilization in several law codes written in
Semitic dialects between 1800 and 1100 b.c. in towns in ancient
Mesopotamia. 9 Surviving portions dealt with the legal position and
rights and duties of women.

Like those of other agrarian communities, these early peoples of the

Tigris-Euphrates valley felt that a woman had to "maintain her virtue."
A wife who was adulterous could be executed or have her nose
chopped off. Meanwhile, a husband had license to fornicate with
prostitutes whenever he chose; philandering was a transgression only
if he coupled with another man's wife or took the virginity of a peer's
eligible daughter. Only for these crimes could he receive a stiff fine,
castration, or death.

As in America today, however, more than one sexual code oper-

ated simultaneously. Some ancients engaged in fertility celebrations in

which extramarital coitus was expected. 10 For them sex had an aura
of sanctity; the sex act brought fertility and power. But for the most
part, stricter codes prevailed in the cradle of Western civilization. Only
women, however, were expected to be faithful to a spouse. Among
most historical agricultural Asian peoples, male adultery was
essentially a trespass against another's property. Moreover, as in other
ancient agrarian societies, adultery was not considered sinful, an
offense against God. This would change.

"Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. "

Adultery first became allied with sin in Western history, according to

historian Vern Bullough, among the ancient Hebrews. Prior to the
Babylonian exile, earliest Judaism had a simple code of sexual
conduct; few sexual practices were equated with immorality. But in the
postexile period, from roughly 516 b.c. until the Romans destroyed
Jerusalem in a.d. 70, Jewish sexual mores became increasingly
identified with God. By Mosaic law a woman had to be a virgin on her
wedding night, then remain permanently faithful to her husband's
bed. But prostitutes, concubines, widows, and maidservants were
permitted to men. Only intercourse with a married woman was
banned. 11 God had spoken: 'Thou shalt not commit adultery."

In the following, talmudic period, during the first few centuries of the
Christian era, Hebrew attitudes toward sex became more explicit.

God, it was said, decreed that husband and wife engage in the marital
act on the eve of the Sabbath. Lists were drawn up prescribing the
minimal sexual obligations of different social classes. Gentlemen of
leisure were to copulate with their wives nightly; laborers who resided
in the same city where they worked should engage in intercourse two
times a week; businessmen who traveled to other cities should indulge
once a week; camel drivers were obliged to have marital sex every
thirty days. And scholars should perform their marital duties on
Friday night. 12 Sex within marriage became blessed, celebrated, holy.

"Awake, O north wind, and come, O south wind! Blow upon my

garden, let its fragrance be wafted abroad. Let my beloved come to his
garden, and eat its choicest fruits/' This was but a part of the Song of
Solomon, the extravagant and joyous ode to love between husband and
wife that the Jews included in the Hebrew Bible in about a.d. 100. A
wife's hair, her teeth, her lips, her cheeks, her neck, her breasts were
all cause for celebration before the Lord. 13 The Jews likened the
adoration between husband and wife to the love between the peoples
of Israel and the Lord. But homosexuality, bestiality, transvestitism,
masturbation, and adultery by a wife or by a man with a married
woman were condemned by God.

This Hebraic attitude toward adultery would greatly influence Western

mores, as would some curious customs of the ancient Greeks.

Often called the first people in history to devote themselves to play,

the classical Greeks reveled in their games. As Greek gods indulged
their concupiscence, so would Greek mortals. By the fifth century b.c.
sexual frolic was among the favorite pastimes—for men. Greek men
considered themselves superior to women. Well-bred girls were
married off in their early teens to men twice their age, then treated
more like wards than wives, cloistered in the house to bear sons. A
husband's only heinous sexual misdeed was coitus with another man's
wife, a transgression for which he could be put to death.

But these life-threatening liaisons seem not to have occurred with any
frequency. Instead, most married gentlemen in classical Athens and
Sparta amused themselves with a host of legitimate extramarital
pursuits. Concubines looked after their daily needs. Educated
courtesans known as hetaerae entertained them outside the home.
And some men, particularly among the upper classes, partook
regularly of homosexual rendezvous with teenage boys.

Early Christians would react violently to these appetites, but they

would cherish other Greek ideals. Although the Greeks generally
celebrated sex, some of them also harbored a deep misgiving that sex
was contaminating, defiling, impure. 14 Heavenly celibacy. As early as
600 b.c. cultists had even begun to espouse asceticism and celibacy,
concepts that would be adopted by fringe groups within the Hebraic
tradition, then seep from generation to generation to influ-
ence early Christian leaders and eventually saturate the mores of
Western men and women. 15

Asceticism and celibacy remained alive—yet peripheral to daily life—in

classical Rome. The ancient Romans were well known for their
libertinism. 16 By 100 b.c. many Romans apparently regarded adultery
the way some Americans feel about cheating on taxes— justified.

But the Romans also had their stoic side. Many liked to hark back to
the good old days when Rome, they maintained, was a village of high
moral integrity and everybody displayed gravitas, a sense of dignity
and responsibility. An undercurrent of morality, continence, and
abstinence was common in the Roman character. 17 And despite the
sexual excesses of emperors and ordinary citizens—women as well as
men—during Rome's glory days, some philosophers and teachers in
these centuries continued to nurture and spread the little-known
Greek philosophy of self-denial of all carnal pleasures.
This strain of Greco-Roman asceticism, commingled with the Hebrew
concept that certain forms of sexual activity, including adultery, were
sinful in the eyes of God, appealed to early Christian leaders.

Interpretations of Jesus' teachings on the subject of sexual conduct

vary widely. Perhaps Jesus held sex within marriage in high esteem.
But Mark 10:11 has Jesus speak as follows on adultery: "Whoever
divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her;
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits
adultery." Even divorce and remarriage were seen as licentious
actions.

Then in the centuries after Jesus, some influential leaders of the

Christian faith became more and more hostile to sex of any kind.
Although some suggest that Paul may have been a sex-affirming Jew of
the Hebraic tradition, he certainly had a fondness for celibacy too. As
he wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, "To the unmarried and the widows I
say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot
exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than
to be aflame with passion." 18

ANATOMY OF LOVE

Sex begone. Celibacy was not officially imposed on all Christian clergy
until the eleventh century. But as the generations passed in early
Christendom, sexual abstinence was becoming increasingly allied with
God, adultery with sin—for both men and women.

Saint Augustine, who lived from a.d. 354 to 430, would spread these
teachings across the Christian world. As a young man, Augustine was
eager to convert to Christianity, but he could not overcome his lust for
his mistress and his devotion to their son. As he wrote in his
Confessions, the classic book of Christian mysticism and the story of
his conversion, he prayed regularly to God, saying, "Give me chastity
and continency, but do not give it yet/' 19

At the behest of his strong-willed mother, Monica, Augustine

eventually cast out his concubine in order to take a legal wife of the
correct social standing. But this wedding never came to pass. During
the two years he waited to marry, he took a temporary mistress. And
this led him to a watershed. Suffering a stricken conscience, he
abandoned his marriage plans, converted to Christianity, and adopted
a life of continence instead. It was not much later that Augustine came
to see coitus as vile, lust as shameful, all acts surrounding intercourse
as unnatural. 20 Celibacy he called the highest good. Intercourse
between husband and wife should be for procreation only. And
adultery, by men as well as women, was the devil incarnate.

This attitude that adultery is a moral transgression for both sexes has
dominated Western mores ever since.

Unfaithfully Yours in America

This moral code has not deterred Western men and women—or people
in any other society—from cheating on their spouses. Americans are
no exception. Despite our attitude that philandering is immoral,
regardless of our sense of guilt when we engage in trysts, in spite of the
risks to family, friends, and livelihood that adultery inevitably entails,
we indulge in extramarital affairs with avid regularly. As George Burns
once summed it up, "Happiness is having a large, loving, caring, close-
knit family in another city." 21

How many Americans are adulterous we will never know. In the 1920s
psychiatrist Gilbert Hamilton, a pioneer in sex research, reported that
28 of 100 men and 24 of 100 women interviewed had

strayed. 22 This was the talk of American dinner tables for more than
a decade.

The famous Kinsey reports in the late forties and early fifties stated
that a little over a third of husbands in a sample of 6,427 men were
unfaithful. Because so many of these subjects were reluctant to discuss
their escapades, however, Kinsey surmised that his figures were low,
that probably about half of all American men were unfaithful to their
wives at some point during marriage. Twenty-six percent of the 6,972
married, divorced, and widowed American women sampled, Kinsey
reported, had engaged in extramarital coitus by age forty. Forty-one
percent of the female adulterers had copulated with a single partner;
40 percent had made love with two to five; 19 percent had engaged
more than five paramours. 23

Almost two decades later these figures apparently had not changed
significantly—despite enormous changes in American attitudes toward
sex during the sixties and seventies, the pinnacle of the "sexual
revolution." A survey commissioned by Playboy magazine and
conducted by Morton Hunt in the seventies reported that 41 percent of
the 691 men and about 25 percent of the 740 married white middle-
class women in the sample had philandered.

Two new trends stood out, however: both sexes started their trysts
earlier than in former decades, and the double standard had eroded.
Whereas only 9 percent of the wives under age twenty-five in the
1950s had taken a paramour, about 25 percent of young wives in the
1970s had done so. Hunt concluded, "Woman will go outside marriage
for sex as often as will man, if she and her society think that she has as
much right to do so as he." 24 A poll taken by Redbook confirmed
Hunt's data for the 1970s. Of about 100,000 women surveyed, 29
percent of those who were married had engaged in an extramarital
affair—but they were cheating sooner after wedding. 25 "Why wait?"
seemed to have become the motto.

Have these figures for the 1970s gone up?

Maybe—and maybe not. A survey of 106,000 readers of Cosmopolitan

magazine in the early 1980s indicated that 54 percent of the married
women had participated in at least one affair, 26 and a poll of 7,239
men reported that 72 percent of those married over two years

had been adulterous. 27 These figures for both men and women were
then independently verified by other researchers. 28 As the June 1,
1987, issue of Marriage and Divorce Today reported, "Seventy percent
of all Americans engage in an affair sometime during their marital
life." 29 And adultery continues to start earlier. In a recent poll of
12,000 married individuals, about 25 percent of the men and women
under twenty-five had cheated on a spouse. 30

But who knows whether any of these figures are accurate?

Men tend to brag about sex, whereas women more regularly conceal
their escapades. Perhaps married women in former decades admitted
to fewer of their love affairs, whereas those of the 1980s are more
honest. Maybe middle-class women today have more "opportunities,"
because they work outside the home. Perhaps men feel freer to
philander as women become more financially independent.
Undoubtedly pollsters do not reach a random sample of Americans
either. And these researchers may be asking different questions or
polling audiences more likely to have committed infidelities or more
willing to admit their dalliances in a poll.

"Who's been sleeping in my bed?" asks Papa Bear in one of our

folktales. No one knows the extent of adulterous sex in America now or
in yesteryear. After all, unlike Hawthorne's Hester Prynne, adulterers
do not display their trysts by wearing the letter A. And although
adultery laws still exist in twenty-five states, our current laws
concerning "no fault" divorce have shifted the emphasis of marriage to
an economic partnership; sexual transgressions rarely reach the courts
or census takers. So scientists who think they know the truth about
American philanderers are naive.

But of one thing I am sure: despite our cultural taboo against

infidelity, Americans are adulterous. Our societal mores, our religious
teachings, our friends and relatives, urge us to invest all of our sexual
energy on one person, a husband or a wife. But in practice a sizable
percentage of both men and women actually spread their time, their
vigor, and their love among multiple partners as they sneak into other
bedrooms. 31

And we are hardly extraordinary. I recently read forty-two

ethnographies about different peoples past and present and found that
adul-
tery occurred in every one. Some of these peoples lived in tenements;
others in row houses or thatched huts. Some raised rice; some raised
money. Some were rich, some poor. Some espoused Christianity;
others worshiped gods embodied in the sun, the wind, the rocks, and
trees. Regardless of their traditions of marriage, despite their customs
of divorce, irrespective of any of their cultural mores about sex, they
all exhibited adulterous behavior—even where adultery was punished
with death.

These forty-two peoples are not alone in their taste for cheating. As
Kinsey concluded, 'The preoccupation of the world's biography and
fiction, through all ages and in all human cultures, with the non-
marital sexual activities of married females and males, is evidence of
the universality of human desires in these matters." 32 Adultery is a
major reason for divorce and family violence in America and many
other places. There exists no culture in which adultery is unknown, no
cultural device or code that extinguishes philandering.

"Friendship is constant in all other things, save the office and affairs of
love," Shakespeare wrote. Our human tendency toward extramarital
liaisons seems to be the triumph of nature over culture. Like the
stereotypic flirt, the smile, the brain physiology for infatuation, and
our drive to bond with a single mate, philandering seems to be part of
our ancient reproductive game.

Why Adultery?

Public whipping, branding, beating, ostracism, mutilation of genitals,

chopping off of nose and ears, slashing feet, chopping at one's hips and
thighs, divorce, desertion, death by stoning, burning, drowning,
choking, shooting, stabbing—such cruelties are meted out by people
around the world for philandering. Given these punishments, it is
astonishing that human beings engage in extramarital affairs at all. Yet
we do.

Why? From a Darwinian perspective, it is easy to explain why men are

—by nature—interested in sexual variety. If a man has two children by
one woman, he has, genetically speaking, "reproduced" himself. But if
he also engages in dalliances with more women and, by chance, sires
two more young, he doubles his contribution to the next generation.
So, as the biological explanation goes, those men

ANATOMY OF LOVE

who tend to seek variety also tend to have more children. These young
survive and pass to subsequent generations whatever it is in the male
genetic makeup that seeks "fresh features," as Byron said of men's
need for sexual novelty. 33

But why are women adulterous? A woman cannot bear another child
every time she sneaks into bed with another lover; she can get
pregnant only at certain times of her menstrual cycle. Moreover, a
woman takes nine months to bear the child, and then it is often several
more months or years before she can conceive again. Unlike a man, a
woman cannot breed every time she copulates. In fact, anthropologist
Donald Symons has argued that, because the number of children a
woman can bear is limited, women are biologically less motivated to
seek fresh features.

Are women really less interested in sexual variety? This puzzle has
several angles. So I shall take the role of devil's advocate and explore
the possibility that women are just as interested in sexual variety and
just as adulterous as men—albeit for different reasons. Let's begin with
Symons, who has an intriguing argument for men's greater drive for
sexual novelty.

Symons bases his premise that men are more interested in sexual
variety than women are not only on the above genetic logic but also on
the sexual habits of American homosexuals. These individuals, he
believes, provide the "acid test" for gender differences in sexuality
because homosexual behavior is not "masked by the compromises
heterosexual relations entail and by moral injunctions." 34

Accepting this as gospel, Symons then cites several studies in the

1960s and 1970s of gay Americans and concludes that gay men are
inclined to one-night stands, to easy, anonymous, unencumbered sex,
to coitus with several different, uncommitted partners, and to
collecting harems and extra lovers, whereas gay women tend to seek
longer relationships instead, as well as more commitment, fewer
lovers, familiar partners, and sex with feeling rather than sex for sex
itself.

Symons then proposes that these differences in male and female

"sexual psychologies" stem from mankind's long hunting-gathering

past: over countless millennia, males who liked sexual variety

impregnated more females, produced more young, and bulked up their
genetic lineages; hence for ancestral males philandering was adaptive.

But an ancestral woman's primary goal was to find a single protector

who would ensure the survival of her children. A woman who sought
sexual variety ran the risk of a jealous mate who might desert her.
Moreover, female sexual escapades took time away from gathering
vegetables and caring for her children. So those females who coupled
with a variety of partners disproportionately died out or bred less of
ten—passing on to modern women the propensity for fidelity.

With his Darwinian logic, his homosexual sample, and his

evolutionary scenario, Symons concludes that men are, by nature,
more interested in sexual variety than women are.

Man the natural playboy, woman the doting spouse—Americans

already believed it. Because of our agrarian background and sexual
double standard it became acceptable to view men as would-be Don
Juans and women as the more virtuous of the genders. So when
Symons presented an evolutionary explanation for men's philandering
nature, many scholars bought it like a better chocolate bar. The idea
that men crave sexual novelty more than women do now saturates
academic books and academic minds.

Which Gender Philanders More?

I am not convinced that homosexual behavior illustrates essential

truths about male and female sexual natures however. Most experts
believe that about 5 percent of all American men and fewer American
women are gay. 35 Homosexual behavior does not constitute the norm
in the United States or anywhere else on earth. Moreover, I cannot
agree with Symons that homosexual behavior constitutes the
"undiluted" nature of either sex; instead, homosexuals are probably
equally affected by their environment. In the 1970s, when his sample
was collected, fast, loose sex was "in" for men. Lesbians, on the other
hand, may well have been constrained by the cultural belief that
women should curtail their sexual escapades.

Equally important, sexuality varies with age and other factors.

Kinsey and his colleagues found that young men of the blue-collar
class indulged in a great deal of infidelity in their early twenties and
then diminished their sexual pursuits by their forties whereas white-
collar, college-educated men tended to philander less in their twenties,
then increase their dalliances to almost once a week by age fifty.
Women, on the other hand, reached the peak of their adultery in their
middle thirties and early forties. 36 If, for example, Symons's
homosexual men and women were largely young and blue-collar
workers, it would not be surprising that he found men sought more
sexual variety than women.

Simple math raises another problem. After all, every time a

heterosexual man is "sleeping around," he is copulating with a woman.
And since the vast majority of adults in almost all of the world's
societies are married, logic upholds the proposition that when a
married man is sneaking into the bushes in Amazonia, behind a rock
in the Australian outback, or into a hut in Africa or Asia, he is most
likely copulating with a married woman.

In modern urban cultures our rotating pool of singles warps this

simple mathematical correlation. Moreover, some 8 to 15 percent of all
American men's dalliances occur with prostitutes. 37 But its fair to say
that the vast majority of the world's heterosexual trysts involve
married men and married women. And it's hard to believe that all the
married women across the planet who have copulated with paramours
throughout all of human history were coerced into philandering.
In fact, there are at least four reasons why adultery could have been
biologically adaptive for our female forebears.

The most obvious of these was elegantly put by Nisa, a !Kung woman
who lives in the Kalahari Desert in southern Africa today. When
anthropologist Marjorie Shostak met Nisa in 1970, Nisa was living in a
hunting-gathering band along with her fifth husband. Nisa had
engaged a lot of lovers too. When Shostak asked Nisa why she had
taken on so many paramours, Nisa replied, 'There are many kinds of
work a woman has to do, and she should have lovers wherever she
goes. If she goes somewhere to visit and is alone, then someone there
will give her beads, someone else will give her meat, and someone else
will give her other food. When she returns to her village, she will have
been well taken care of." 38

Nisa summed up in a few sentences a fine adaptive explanation for

female interest in sexual variety—supplementary subsistence. Extra
goods and services would have provided our adulterous female
forebears with more shelter and extra food, perquisites that gave them
more protection and better health, ultimately enabling their young to
survive disproportionately.

Second, adultery probably served ancestral females as an insurance

policy. If a "husband" died or deserted home, she had another male
she might be able to enlist to help with parental chores.

Third, if an ancestral woman was "married" to a poor hunter with bad

eyesight and a fearful or unsupportive temperament, she stood to
upgrade her genetic line by having children with another man— Mr.
Good Gene.

Fourth, if a woman had offspring with an array of fathers, each child

would be somewhat different, increasing the likelihood that some from
among them would survive unpredictable fluctuations in the
environment.

As long as prehistoric females were secretive about their extramarital

affairs, they could garner extra resources, life insurance, better genes,
and more varied DNA for their biological futures. Hence those who
sneaked into the bushes with secret lovers lived on—unconsciously
passing on through the centuries whatever it is in the female spirit that
motivates modern women to philander.

Thus female philandering was probably adaptive in the past. So

adaptive, in fact, that it has left its mark on female physiology. At
orgasm the blood vessels of a man's genitals eject the blood back into
the body cavity, the penis goes limp, and sex is over. The man must
start from the beginning to achieve orgasm again. For a woman,
however, sex may have just begun. Unlike her mate's, a woman's
genitals have not expelled all the blood. If she knows how, she can
climax again soon and again and again if she wants to. Sometimes
orgasms occur in such rapid succession that one is indistinguishable
from the next, a phenomenon known as continual orgasm.

This high sex drive of the human female, in conjunction with data on
other primates, has led anthropologist Sarah Hrdy to a novel
hypothesis about the primitive beginnings of human female adultery.
39

Hrdy points out that female apes and monkeys engage in a great

deal of nonreproductive coitus. During estrus, for example, a female

chimp will copulate with every male in the vicinity except her sons.
This ancillary sexuality in chimps and many other female primates is
not necessary to conceive a child. Hrdy therefore proposes that the
female chimp's pursuit of sexual variety has two Darwinian purposes:
to befriend males who may try to kill a female's coming newborn and
to confuse paternity so that each male in the community will act
paternally toward her forthcoming child.

Hrdy then applies this reasoning to women, attributing the high

female sex drive to an ancient evolutionary tactic to copulate with
multiple partners, thereby obtaining supplementary paternal
investment and insurance against infanticide from each. This is a good
idea. Perhaps our primitive female ancestors living in the trees
pursued sex with a variety of males to keep friends. Then, when our
forebears were driven onto the grasslands of Africa some four million
years ago and pair-bonding evolved to raise the young, females turned
from open promiscuity to clandestine copulations, reaping the benefits
of resources and better or more varied genes as well.

Much of the world would not agree with Donald Symons or the
American belief that men are the Don Juans whereas women are the
shy, retiring recipients of sex.

The custom of the veil evolved in Moslem societies partly because

Islamic people firmly believe that women are highly seductive. Clito-
ridectomy, the excising of the clitoris (and often some of the
surrounding genital tissues), is done in several African cultures to curb
the high female libido. Talmudic writers in the early Christian era
stipulated that it was a husband's duty to copulate with his wife
regularly precisely because they thought women had a higher sex drive
than men. The Cayapa Indians of western Ecuador think women are
lechers. Even the Spanish men who strut, preen, and philander in the
small towns of Andalusia are convinced that women are dangerous,
potent, and promiscuous—hence the practice of the chaperone.

In fact, had you asked Clellan Ford and Frank Beach, sex researchers
of the 1950s, which sex was more interested in sexual vari-

ety, they would have replied, "In those societies which have no double
standard in sexual matters and in which a variety of liaisons are
permitted, the women avail themselves as eagerly of their opportunity
as do the men." 40 Kinsey agreed, saying, "Even in those cultures
which most rigorously attempt to control the female's extramarital
coitus, it is perfectly clear that such activity does occur, and in many
instances it occurs with considerable regularity." 41

All these data certainly lead one to suspect that women avail
themselves of illicit lovers with relish, perhaps even as avidly as men.

So the picture on the adultery puzzle is taking shape: men's biological

need to spread their genes and the noticeable number of highly
sexually active male homosexuals support the proposition that men
are by nature more interested in sexual variety than women are. On
the other hand, every time a heterosexual man is philandering, he is
philandering with a woman. Moreover, women's biological drive to
acquire resources, to obtain an insurance policy, and to secure better
or more varied DNA, the potentially intense and long female sexual
response, and the high incidence of female adultery in societies where
there is no sexual double standard all suggest that women seek sexual
variety regularly, perhaps as regularly as men.

There is a last line of evidence to toss into your thinking cap: that
offered by prostitution.

The Oldest Profession

In agrarian societies with a strict double standard, women long

embarked on one of two quite different sexual careers, becoming
either cloistered housewives or courtesans, concubines, or prostitutes.
In these cultures, therefore, some women had only a single partner,
while others copulated with a lot of men. These "ladies of the night"
were not unique to farming peoples either. 42

Among the Mehinaku of Amazonia, the most sexually active person in

the jungle village was a woman—who received fish, meat, or trinkets in
payment for her trysts with a variety of partners 43 Some

traditional Navajo women chose not to marry; instead, they lived

alone and entertained a variety of male visitors for a fee. 44 Women in
many other American Indian tribes traditionally accompanied men on
their hunting expeditions, returning home with meat in exchange for
satisfying several of these hunters' sexual needs. 45

An unmarried Canela girl of central Brazil who wished to earn food or

services selected a would-be lover and asked her brother to arrange a
date. Many of these trysts became long-term business relationships.
46 Madams flourished among the traditional Sierra Taras-cans of
Mexico. These older women had a string of girls they could summon at
a moment's notice. 47 Nupe women of sub-Saharan Africa came to the
marketplace at night dressed in their finery and jewels; here they sold
kola nuts; but buyers could also purchase the woman for the night. 48

You may wish to argue that these women (and women in many other
cultures) all engaged in prostitution for purely economic reasons. But
many women say they like the sexual variety.

And the women who pursue this vocation are not alone. The animal
kingdom is rife with loose females. As you recall from chapter 1,
female chimpanzees, other mammals, and many female birds, bugs,
and reptiles solicit males and copulate in return for food. Among
Australian bush crickets and other insects, the male's offering is called
the nuptial gift. Prostitution deserves its venerable title "the oldest
profession in the world."

A Modest Proposal

So back to the refrain: Who seeks more sexual variety, men or women?

My own modest proposal is that during our long evolutionary history

most males pursued trysts to spread their genes, while females evolved
two alternative strategies to acquire resources: some women elected to
be relatively faithful to a single man in order to reap a lot of benefits
from him; others engaged in clandestine sex with many men to acquire
resources from each. This scenario roughly coincides with the
common beliefs: man, the natural playboy; woman, the madonna or
the whore.

It is an old axiom in science that what you are looking for, you tend to
find. And this may well have become the case in the scientific
examination of adultery. In a recent study by Donald Symons and
Bruce Ellis, for example, 415 college students were asked whether they
would have sex with an anonymous student of the opposite sex. In this
imaginary scenario, participants were told that all risk of pregnancy,
discovery, and disease was absent. The results were those you would
expect. Males were consistently more likely to say yes, leading these
researchers once again to conclude that men are more interested in
sexual variety than women are. 49
But here's the glitch. This study takes into consideration the primary
genetic motive for male philandering (to fertilize young women). But it
does not take into account the primary motive for female philandering
—the acquisition of resources.

What if Symons and Ellis had asked these same men a different
question: ''Would you be willing to have a one-night stand with a
woman from the nearby senior citizens' home?" I doubt these men
would have expressed such craving for sexual variety. And what if
Symons and Ellis had asked these same young women a different
question too: "Would you be willing to have a one-night stand with
Robert Redford if he gives you a brand new Porsche?" Evolutionary
logic holds that women sleep around for goods and services. And until
scientists take into account the underlying genetic motivations of each
gender, as well as the age and social status of their informants, we will
never know which sex is more interested in sexual variety.

Whatever you chose to make of all these data and ideas, there is no
evidence whatsoever that women are sexually shy or that they shun
clandestine sexual adventures. Instead, both men and women seem to
exhibit a mixed reproductive strategy: monogamy and adultery are our
fare.

The "Perfect"Love

We may never know who philanders more. But we do know why men
and women say they are adulterous.

When polls ask men and women why they engage in extramarital

<)6 ANATOMY OF LOVE

affairs, adulterers regularly say, "for lust," "for love," or "I don't know."
Psychologists would add that some philanderers want to get caught in
order to patch up a marriage. Others use their dalliances to improve
their marriage by satisfying some of their needs outside the home. Still
others use their escapades as an excuse to leave a spouse. Some seek
attention. Some are searching for autonomy. Some want
independence. Some want to feel special, desired, more masculine or
feminine, more attractive or better understood. Some want more
communication, more intimacy, or just more sex. Others crave drama,
excitement, or danger. A few seek revenge. Some want to find the
"perfect" love. And some want to prove to themselves they are still
young, the so-called last-chance affair. 50

Carol Botwin tells us that some men can't be faithful because they are
arrested in the "baby phase"; these people need another parent when
they are traveling or when their partner is unavailable. Other sexually
unfaithful men and women grew up in households where parents were
never intimate, so as adults these people create shallow marriages and
pursue noncommittal relationships. Some men put their wives on a
pedestal but like to sleep with women from "the gutter." Some women
and men are narcissistic; they need multiple lovers to show off their
glitzy facade. A few like a triangle, a tug-of-war. Others get high on
secrecy. Some want to solve a sex problem. 51

Many other sociological and psychological factors are associated with

adultery as well. Full-time work for the woman, one's level of
education, one's decade of birth, frequency of attendance in church,
one's degree of financial independence, one's premarital sexual career,
one's parents' values and occupations, the chronic illness of a spouse,
the frigidity of the wife, or constant travel by one's mate all affect one's
susceptibility to adultery.

But as a Darwinist, I prefer the simple explanation of the man who

says he seeks variety and that of Nisa, who reports, "One man gives
you only one kind of food to eat. But when you have lovers, one brings
you something and another brings you something else. One comes at
night with meat, another with money, another with beads." 52 These
answers have an evolutionary honesty. For although the woman who
climbs into bed with a colleague is certainly not thinking of her genetic
future as she draws down the bedcovers, and

the last thing a husband wants is to impregnate the co-worker he

seduces after the Christmas party, it is the millennia of sneaking off
with lovers—and the genetic payoffs these dalliances accrued—that
have produced the propensity for adultery around the world today.

'Thou shalt commit adultery/' Because of a printer's error in the 1805

edition of the Bible, this commandment suddenly dictated
philandering. It soon became known as the wicked Bible. 53 But the
human animal seems cursed with a contradiction of the spirit. We
search for true love, find him or her, and settle in. Then, when the
spell begins to fade, the mind begins to wander. As Oscar Wilde
summed up our plight, 'There are two great tragedies in life, losing the
one you love and winning the one you love."

Alas, winning often leads to another part of our reproductive strategy,

our human tendency to divorce.

Blueprint ior Divorce

The Four-^ear Itch

She was a worthy womman al hir lyve, Housbondes at chirche dore she
hadde fyve.

— Geoffrey Chaucer, the Wife of Bath

V^/h eyes be strong, you cherish people and then they're gone." Safia,
a middle-aged Bedouin woman of Egypt's Western Desert, held back
her tears as she recited this sad poem to anthropologist Lila Abu-
Lughod. 1 A year earlier her spouse of almost twenty years had come
to her while she was baking and said, "You're divorced." At the time
Safia had acted aloof, nonchalant. She still feigned indifference, saying
to the anthropologist, "I didn't care when he divorced me. I never liked
him." But Safia was concealing her despair. Only in a little poem could
she reveal her vulnerability, longing, or attachment.

Although their songs and stories express passion between women and
men, the Bedouins think romantic love is shameful. Individuals in
their society are supposed to marry according to their family's bidding.
One should feel deep love only for parents, brothers, sisters,

and children—not for a spouse. So the Bedouins are horrified by public

displays of affection between husband and wife. And although they
believe spouses can fall deeply in love, honorable people must
maintain hasham —sexual modesty and propriety. Unveiled passions
appear only in short verse. 2

Today these nomads have settled down to herd sheep, tend fig and
olive groves, smuggle, or pursue other business ventures, but they
carry with them an ancient love of love.

Before the railroad, before the Toyota truck, their ancestors traversed
the deserts of North Africa, moving caravans of dates and other goods
from oases in the sand to markets in the Nile valley. With them they
brought their Arabian tribal mores—a love for independence, honor,
courage, gallantry, and hospitality, a penchant for vendettas, and,
above all, a taste for women, wine, and song. 3 Safia's short poem, like
all modern Bedouin verse on the despair of love or the exhilaration of
romance, is today's remembrance of desert song masters long
deceased.

"I divorce thee; I divorce thee; I divorce thee." These words, too, come
from pre-Islamic times. In those days women were honored and
respected. They were also prized goods. Girls were wards of the family;
after marriage, women became the property of a spouse and could be
dismissed if unsatisfactory. As al-Ghazali, the outstanding eleventh-
century intellectual and author, described divorce in ancient Arabian
society, it was easy to obtain. 4 One merely had to pronounce a
statement of divorce three times.

In the sixth century a.d. the Prophet Muhammad built on this tribal
custom. Unlike early Christian fathers who venerated celibacy,
Muhammad believed that coitus was one of the great joys of life and
that marriage guarded men and women from the irreligious world of
promiscuity. So he insisted that his followers wed. As he declared, "I
fast and I eat, I keep vigil and I sleep, and I am married. And whoever
is not willing to follow my Sunna (tradition) does not belong to me." 5
There would be no celibacy in Islam.

To this day Muhammad's influence has produced what scientists call a

sex-positive Islamic culture, a society that venerates man/ woman
love, sex, and marriage. Western society, on the other hand, is
sometimes called sex negative because our historical reli-

lOO ANATOMY OF LOVE

gious precepts extolled the virtues of celibacy and monasticism

instead.

Muhammad sealed other traditions. Although he saw women as

subordinate to men, a belief inherited from pre-Islamic peoples, he
introduced a host of social, moral, and legal codes to protect women,
as well as a list of explicit rights and duties of each spouse. Among
these guidelines: a man should have no more than four wives, and he
must circulate among them on consecutive nights. Above all, a
husband must provide for each without favoritism.

A wife had responsibilities, too, particularly to bear and raise children,

to cook, and to obey her husband. In Islam, marriage rested on a legal
contract. And unlike Christian matrimony, which became a sacrament
and hence indissoluble, the Muslim wedding pledge could be broken.
The Prophet's bidding was from God.

Today these traditional divorce procedures still exist in much of the

Islamic world, although in some places divorce has become harder to
obtain. The most acceptable means of divorce is still Tala-qus-Sunna,
in conformity with the dictates of the Prophet. This form of talaq, or
divorce, can be done in either of two slightly varied, approved ways.
One of them, talaq ahsan, consists of a single pronouncement, "I
divorce thee; I divorce thee; I divorce thee," made while the wife is not
menstruating, along with sexual abstinence for three months. The
divorce is revoked if the husband withdraws his words or if the couple
resume intercourse during this three-month waiting period.

Islamic law gives a host of other stipulations about divorce— when it is

appropriate for a wife to leave a husband and how either spouse can
negotiate their separation with grace—for Muhammad savored
harmony between men and women, be they together or apart. As the
Koran enjoined, 'Then, when they have reached their term, take them
back in kindness or part from them in kindness." 6

Still, Safia felt sorrow when her husband went away.

Parting

We all have our share of troubles. But probably one of the hardest
things we do is leave a spouse. Is there any way to do this well?

I doubt it. But people have devised many formal ways to end a
marriage. In some societies special courts or councils negotiate
divorces. Sometimes the village headman hears divorce cases. Most
often divorce is considered a private matter to be handled by the
parties and their families. 7 This can be as easy as moving a hammock
from one fireplace to the next, or it can disrupt an entire community—
as recently occurred in India.

In 1988 the New York Times reported the divorce case of a young
Hindu girl, Ganga, who fled her husband of five years after he had
severely beaten her. 8 The next day over five hundred people met in a
field near the village to hear the couple and their kin answer questions
posed by respected elders of their caste. But when Ganga accused her
husband's father and uncle of trying to assault her sexually, an
argument erupted. Insults soon led to combat with long sticks, and in
no time several men lay in the field—clubbed and bleeding. The ruckus
stopped only when word spread that the police were coming. Divorce
proceedings no doubt continued with bitter words behind mud walls.

Whether done in anger or dispassion, with full state regalia, or with a

minimum of fuss, divorce is indisputably a part of the human
condition. Almost everywhere in the world people permit divorce. The
ancient Incas did not. The Roman Catholic church refuses to
acknowledge it. A few other ethnic groups and societies do not allow
marital dissolution. 9 And in some cultures divorces are difficult to
obtain. 10

But from the tundras of Siberia to the jungles of Amazonia, people

accept divorce as regrettable—although sometimes necessary. They
have specific social or legal procedures for divorce. And they do
divorce. Moreover, unlike many Westerners, traditional peoples do not
make divorce a moral issue. The Mongols of Siberia sum up a common
worldwide attitude, "If two individuals cannot get along harmoniously
together, they had better live apart." 11

Why Do People Divorce? Bitter quarrels, insensitive remarks, lack of

humor, watching too much television, inability to listen, drunkenness,
sexual rejection—the reasons men or women give for why they leave a
marriage are as varied as their motives for having wedded in the first
place. But there are some common circumstances under which people
around the globe choose to abandon a relationship.

Overt adultery heads the list. In a study of 160 societies,

anthropologist Laura Betzig established that blatant philandering,
particularly by the wife, is the most commonly offered rationale for
seeking to dissolve a marriage. Sterility and barrenness come next.
Cruelty, particularly by the husband, ranks third among worldwide
reasons for divorce. Then come an array of charges about a spouse's
personality and conduct. Bad temper, jealousy, talkativeness, nagging,
disrespect, laziness by the wife, nonsupport by the husband, sexual
neglect, quarrelsomeness, absence, and running off with a lover are
among the many explanations. 12

I am not surprised that adultery and infertility are paramount. Darwin

theorized that people marry primarily to breed. Unquestionably, many
people wed to gain an economically valuable spouse or to accumulate
children to support them as they age; still others marry to cement
political ties with relatives, friends, or enemies. But as Betzig has
neatly proven, Darwin was correct: since the main reasons given for
divorce are closely linked to sex and reproduction, it follows that
people wed primarily to reproduce. 13

It should also follow that most divorced persons of reproductive age

remarry. And indeed they do. 14 Despite dashed dreams, with full
memory of the vicious quarrels, regardless of the inevitable realization
that marriage can be irritating, dull, and painful, the vast majority of
people who divorce take another spouse. In America 75 percent of the
women and 80 percent of the men who separate wed again. 15 And
because marriage defines one as an adult in most traditional societies,
divorced people around the world find another partner.

We seem to have an eternal optimism about our next mate.

Money Talks

Samuel Johnson defined remarriage as the triumph of hope over

experience. Americans joke about the "seven-year itch/'
Anthropologists know this human habit as "serial monogamy." Call it
what you will, the human penchant to divorce and remarry is
worldwide. And it displays several other striking patterns.

First of all, divorce is common in societies where women and men

both own land, animals, currency, information, and/or other valued
goods or resources and where both have the right to distribute or
exchange their personal riches beyond the immediate family circle. If
you own a bank in New York City, if you possess the rights to the only
local water hole in the Kalahari Desert of southern Africa, or if you
take your grain to market in Nigeria and come home with wealth that
you can keep, invest, sell, barter, or give away, you are rich. Where
men and women are not dependent on each other to survive, bad
marriages can end—and often do.

A telling example of the power of economic autonomy is offered by the

!Kung Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert. Among these people, men and
women often marry more than once. 16 And it is no coincidence, I
think, that !Kung women are economically and socially powerful as
well.

Although the !Kung are rapidly adopting Western values and

twentieth-century technology, their high divorce rate is not a new
development. When anthropologists recorded their lifeways in the
1960s, these people lived in small groups of some ten to thirty
individuals during the rainy season. Then, as the weather turned and
the blistering October sun sucked up the surface water, they
assembled in larger communities around permanent water holes. But
even when the !Kung were scattered across the bush, men and women
traveled regularly between communities, connecting a fluid network of
several hundred kin.

!Kung women commuted to work. Not every morning. But every two
to three days when staples waned, a wife needed to go collecting.
Carrying her nursing infant in her shawl and leaving her older
youngsters in the "day care" of friends and relatives, she joined a

group of women and marched off through the chaparral.

Each foraging expedition was novel. Sometimes a woman returned

with baobab fruit, wild onions, tsama melons, and sweet mongongo
nuts. On other days she gathered sour plums, tsin beans, leafy greens,
and water roots. Honey, caterpillars, tortoises, and birds' eggs were
groceries too. And regularly a woman returned with valuable
information. From the animal tracks she discovered as she walked, she
could tell which beasts had passed by, when, how many were in the
herd, and where the group was headed.

!Kung men went hunting two to three days a week, in quest of dove or
sand grouse, a springhare, a porcupine, an antelope, even a giraffe.
Sometimes a husband came home with just enough meat to feed his
wife and children; sometimes a group of men felled a beast large
enough to divide with hunting companions, relatives, and friends.
Meat was a delicacy. And good hunters were honored. But men
brought home meat only one day in four.

Consequently women provided 60 to 80 percent of dinner almost

every night. Women also shared the rights to water sites in the desert
—a situation not unlike owning the local bank. During reproductive
years women held high status as child bearers. Older women often
became shamans and leaders in community affairs as well.
So !Kung women were powerful.

And when a husband and wife found themselves in a desperate

marriage, either one or the other generally packed up a few belongings
and departed for another camp. Why? Because they could. !Kung
spouses often argued for months before breaking up. Cruel words and
bitter tears spilled onto the desert sand. Neighbors invariably got
involved. But eventually most unhappy relationships ended. Of the 331
marriages !Kung women reported to sociologist Nancy Howell in the
1970s, 134 ended in divorce. 17 Then men and women wed again.
Some !Kung women had as many as five consecutive spouses.

This correlation between economic independence and divorce is seen

in a host of cultures. 18 Among the Yoruba of West Africa, for
example, women traditionally controlled the complex marketing

system. They grew the crops, then took their produce to a weekly
market—a market run entirely by women. As a result Yoruba women
brought home not only staples but also money and luxuries,
independent wealth. Up to 46 percent of all Yoruba marriages ended
in divorce. 19

The Hadza live on the grasslands around Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.

Although the gorge area is dry and rocky, it abounds with roots,
berries, and small game, and during the rainy season spouses regularly
leave camp separately in the morning to forage for themselves. Then in
the dry season, bands assemble around permanent water holes, men
hunt large game, and all dance, gamble, gossip, and share the meat.
But Hadza men and women are not dependent on one another to
provide the evening meal. And their marriages reflect this independent
spirit. In the 1960s their divorce rates were roughly five times higher
than those in the United States. 20

Personal economic autonomy spells freedom to depart. And for me the

most vivid illustration of this correlation are the Navajo of the
American Southwest—undoubtedly because I lived with them for
several months in 1968.
Take Route 66 west out of Gallup, New Mexico, drive some forty-five
minutes, swing north on a broad dirt road through the chaparral, the
dust, and the smell of sage, go past the Pine Springs trading post,
beyond the abandoned hogan (a seven-sided log house), and curve
right past the big pine tree and up the hill of wildflowers. There's our
wooden house—with a potbellied stove for heat, a gas range for
cooking fried bread, coffee, and mutton soup, two big brass beds, a
kitchen table, and three kerosene lamps we used to sit around at night
and talk. A usually jolly home, with a front door looking east, two big
tanks of precious water nestled in a nearby grove of pines, and an
orange canyon ribboning through our vast front yard.

My Navajo "mother" orchestrated daily life. She collected Indian

paintbrush and other wildflowers, carded and dyed wool, and wove
Navajo blankets to support a family of five. She also owned the land
around her. The Navajo are matrilineal; children trace their descent
through their mother's lineage, so women own a great deal of
property. Women are also medical diagnosticians, who play a vital role
in Navajo ritual life. 21 They analyze the sick, identify spiritual and

physical illnesses, and prescribe the appropriate Navajo curing

ceremony. So women enjoy a lot of prestige; they participate in all
community affairs—and about one out of three divorces. 22

"One shouldn't marry only to be unhappy the remainder of one's

days," the Micmac of eastern Canada say. 23 Much of the world agrees.
Where women and men can leave each other, unhappy people often
do. Then usually they wed again.

Divorce rates are much lower where spouses are dependent on each
other to make ends meet. The most notable correlation between
economic dependence and low divorce rates is seen in preindustrial
Europe and in all other societies that use the plow for agriculture—
such as India and China. 24 Some people trace this low divorce rate
among historical Christian Europeans to religious causes—for
understandable reasons. Jesus forbade divorce. 25 And as I have
mentioned, by the eleventh century a.d. Christian marriage had
become a sacrament; divorce was impossible for Christians.
But culture often complements nature's laws, and the low divorce rates
seen in preindustrial European societies were also due to an
inescapable ecological reality: farming couples needed each other to
survive. 26 A woman living on a farm depended on her husband to
move the rocks, fell the trees, and plow the land. Her husband needed
her to sow, weed, pick, prepare, and store the vegetables. Together
they worked the land. More important, whoever elected to leave the
marriage left empty-handed. Neither spouse could dig up half the
wheat and relocate. Farming women and men were tied to the soil, to
each other, and to an elaborate network of stationary kin. Under these
ecological circumstances, divorce was not a practical alternative.

No wonder divorce was rare throughout preindustrial Europe, across

the breadbasket of the Caucasus, and among many agrarian peoples
stretching to the Pacific Rim.

The Industrial Revolution changed this economic relationship between

men and women and helped stimulate modern patterns of divorce (see
chapter 16).

The United States is a good example. When factories appeared beyond

the barns of agricultural America, women and men began to leave the
farm for work. And what did they bring home but money—movable,
divisible property. During much of the 1800s most women still ran the
house. But in the early decades of the twentieth century American
middle-class women began to join the labor force in greater numbers,
giving them economic autonomy.

Not coincidentally, the American divorce rate, which started to rise

with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, continued its slow but
steady climb. For an unhappy husband will leave a wife who brings
home a paycheck long before he will desert the woman who weeds his
garden. And a woman with a salary is often less tolerant of marital
despair than one dependent on her spouse to provide the evening
meal. Many observers identify women's employment outside the home
—and control over their own money—as a prime factor in this rising
frequency of divorce. 27
A rise of divorce rates in tandem with female economic autonomy has
been seen before in Western history. When the Romans won several
foreign wars in the centuries preceding Christ, trade monopolies
brought unprecedented wealth to Rome. An urban upper class
emerged. Rich Roman patricians were now less eager to let massive
dowries pass into the hands of sons-in-law. So with a series of new
marriage regulations in the first century B.C., upper-class women
came to control more of their fortunes—and their futures. And as a
class of increasingly financially independent women rose in ancient
Rome, divorce became epidemic. 28

Ties That Bind

"All you need is love," the Beatles sang. Not so. Many other cultural
factors besides economic autonomy contribute to the stability or
instability of a marriage.

Traditionally divorce rates were higher in the United States among

partners who came from different socioeconomic, ethnic, and religious
backgrounds. 29 This may be changing, though. In a study of 459
women in Detroit, sociologist Martin Whyte discovered that these
factors had little effect on the fate of a relationship. Instead, similar
personality traits, shared habits, parallel interests,

ANATOMY OF LOVE

common values, joint leisure activities, and mutual friends were the
best predictors of marital stability. Interestingly, Whyte also
concluded, "It helps if you marry at a mature age, if you are very much
in love, if you are white and come from a close and loving home." 30
People without these attributes are at greater risk.

Psychologists report that inflexible people make unstable marriages.

31 Therapists say that where the ties holding a couple together
outweigh the forces pulling them apart, individuals tend to stay
together. 32 How spouses adjust to one another, how they bargain,
how they fight, and how they listen and persuade make a difference
too; where there is little compromise, marriages are more likely to
dissolve. 33 Demographers have shown that when there is an excess of
men or a dearth of women, wives become scarce commodities and
people are less likely to separate. 34 American couples who bear a boy
have a statistically better chance of remaining married, 35 as do
spouses with preschool children. 36 And couples that marry very
young tend to divorce. 37

Anthropologists have added a cross-cultural perspective to our

understanding of divorce. 38 Divorce is common in matrilineal
cultures like that of the Navajo, probably because a wife has resources,
her children are members of her clan, and her husband has more
responsibilities for his sister's offspring than for his own; hence
spouses are companions, not vital economic partners. Where a
husband must pay a "bride price" to the family of his intended for the
privilege of marrying her, divorce rates are often lower because at
divorce these goods must be returned. Endogamy, marrying within
one's own community, is associated with more-permanent
relationships because common relatives, friends, and obligations tend
to bind the pair into a common network. 39

Polygyny has a curious effect on divorce. When a man has several

wives, these women tend to fight for the attention and resources of
their single husband. Jealousies lead to showdowns and divorce. More
important, a man with several women can spare the services of one,
while a man with only a single wife will think hard before he deserts
the only woman who cooks for him. As a matter of fact, divorce rates
have declined in Muslim societies since contact with Western mores;
40 our tradition of monogamy is stabilizing Islamic family life.

'There is no society in the world where people have stayed married

without enormous community pressure to do so/' Margaret Mead once
said. 41 She was right. Divorce rates are just as high in many
traditional societies as in the United States. 42

This seems curious. After all the smiles and gazes, the dizzying
sensations of adoration, the shared secrets and private jokes, the
lovely times in bed, the days and nights with family and friends, the
children they have borne, the property they have collected, the colorful
experiences they have amassed through all the hours, months, and
years they laughed and loved and struggled as a team, why do men and
women leave rich relationships behind?

Perhaps this restlessness is driven by currents buried in our human

psyche, profound reproductive forces that evolved across eons of daily
mating throughout our shadowed past.

The Four- Year Itch

Hoping to get some insight into the nature of divorce, I turned to the
demographic yearbooks of the United Nations. These volumes were
begun in 1947 when census takers in countries as culturally diverse as
Finland, Russia, Egypt, South Africa, Venezuela, and the United States
started to ask their inhabitants about divorce. In these data, collected
every decade by the Statistical Office of the United Nations on dozens
of societies, I culled the answers to three questions: How many years
were you married when you divorced? How old were you when you
divorced? How many children did you have at the time of your
divorce?

Three remarkable patterns emerged.

And they ring of evolutionary forces.

Most striking, divorce generally occurs early in marriage—peaking in

or around the fourth year after wedding—followed by a gradual decline
in divorce as more years of marriage go by (See appendix A). 43
Actually I was disappointed to discover this; I had expected to find a
divorce peak during and around the seventh year of marriage 44 Not
to be. Finland offered a typical example. In 1950 the number of
Finnish divorces peaked during the fourth year of marriage; it
gradually declined after this four-year peak. In 1966 Finnish divorces
occurred most often during the third year of mar-

HO ANATOMY OF LOVE

riage. Divorces once again clustered around a four-year pinnacle in

1974, 1981, and 1987 (see appendix, figure 1, A-E).

When I put these four Finnish divorce peaks ("modes," to statisticians)

and the divorce peaks for all years available for all the other sixty-one
cultures on a master chart (appendix, figure 2), it became evident that
among these diverse peoples divorces tended to peak during and
around the fourth year of marriage. There was no seven-year itch; a
four-year itch emerged instead.

There certainly were variations off this four-year divorce peak. In

Egypt and other Muslim countries, for example, divorces occurred
most frequently during the first few months of marriage—nowhere
near the four-year mark (appendix, figure 3).

These variations were not surprising, though. In these cultures the

groom's family is expected to return their new daughter-in-law to her
parents if she is not fitting into her new home—something in-laws do
rapidly when they do it. 45 Moreover, the Koran exempts a Muslim
husband from paying half of the wedding fee if he dissolves the union
before consummating it. 46 Thus social pressure and economic
incentive both spur unhappily married Egyptians and other Muslim
people to divorce early. Last, these statistics include "revocable
divorces,'' provisional decrees that require few financial reparations.
Revocable divorces make the process of separation quick and easy and
the duration of marriage short. 47

The American divorce peak hovers somewhat below the common four-
year peak, and it is interesting to speculate on this variation too. In
some years, such as 1977, divorces peaked around the fourth year of
marriage. 48 But in i960, 1970, 1979, 1981, 1983, and 1986 the
divorces peaked earlier—between the second and third year after
wedding (appendix, figure 4). 49 Why?

I know that this American divorce peak has nothing to do with the
rising divorce rate in America. The divorce rate doubled between i960
and 1980, yet couples divorced in or around the second year of
marriage throughout this time. I know that it cannot be explained by
the growing number of couples who live together either. The numbers
of men and women who took up residence without marrying

almost tripled in the 1970s—but the American divorce peak did not
budge. 50

Purely as a guess, I would say that this American divorce peak may
have something to do with American attitudes toward marriage itself.
We tend not to marry for economic, political, or family reasons.
Instead, as anthropologist Paul Bohannan once said, "Americans
marry to enhance their inner, largely secret selves." 51

I find this remark fascinating—and correct. We marry for love and to

accentuate, balance out, or mask parts of our private selves. This is
why you sometimes see a reserved accountant married to a blond
bombshell or a scientist married to a poet. Perhaps it is no coincidence
that the American divorce peak corresponds perfectly with the normal
duration of infatuation—two to three years. If partners are not
satisfied with the match, they bail out soon after the infatuation high
wears off.

So there are exceptions to the four-year itch.

These data have other problems. 52

In some societies, partners court for months; in others they marry

quickly. The time involved in preparing for the wedding, the months
or years a person will endure an awful marriage, the ease or difficulty
of obtaining a divorce, and the length of time needed to get the divorce
decree also vary from one culture to the next. In actuality, then,
human relationships begin before they are legally recorded and
founder before they become legally defunct.

There is no way to measure all the variables that skew these data
collected by the United Nations. But here is a focal point of this book:
given the vast number of cultural factors and individual variations
involved in marriage and divorce, one would expect even fairly
significant patterns to disappear; it is remarkable that any pattern
appears at all. Yet, despite the varying traditions for marrying, the
myriad worldwide opinions about divorce, and the diverse procedures
for parting, men and women desert each other in a roughly common
pattern.

Some of these people are bankers; others garden, herd cattle, fish, or
trade to make a living. Some have a college education; some

neither read nor write. Among these hundreds of millions of men and
women from sixty-two different cultures, individuals speak different
languages, ply different trades, wear different clothes, carry different
currencies, intone different prayers, fear different devils, and harbor
different hopes and different dreams. Nevertheless, their divorces
regularly cluster around a four-year peak.

And this cross-cultural divorce pattern is unrelated to divorce rate. It

occurs in societies where the divorce rate is high and in cultures where
divorce is rare. 53 It even remains constant in the same society
overtime—despite a soaring incidence of divorce. What a curiosity.
Marriage has a cross-cultural pattern of decay.

This pattern of human bonding is even embedded in Western

mythology. During the twelfth century traveling European minstrels
called together lords and ladies, knights and commoners, to hear the
fatal epic saga of Tristan and Iseult—the first modern Western
romance. "My lords," a bard began, "if you would hear a high tale of
love and of death, here is that of Tristan and Queen Iseult; how to their
full joy, but to their sorrow also, they loved each other, and how at last,
they died of that love together upon one day; she by him and he by
her." 54

As the French writer Denis de Rougemont has said of this myth about
adultery, it is "a kind of archetype of our most complex feelings of
unrest." His observation is even more astute than he may know. The
tale begins when a young knight and a beautiful queen share an elixir
known to induce love for about three years.

Is there an inherent weak point in human pair-bonds? Perhaps.

There are others.

Divorce Is for the Young

Between 1946 and 1964 some 76 million Americans were born. Hail
the "baby boom," a mass production following World War II. Today
these people range from their late twenties to their mid-forties. And
because they see divorce among their peers, they assume that marital
dissolution is most prevalent in middle age. It is not. Divorces peak
among the young.

In America divorce risk peaks between ages 20 and 24 for both women
and men. This is slightly low by world standards. In the twenty-four
societies for which data are available in the United Nations yearbooks,
divorce risk is highest in age category 25-29 for men, while divorce
risk peaks about equally in age groups 20-24 and 25-29 for women.
Divorce then becomes less and less frequent in older age groups. And
by middle age divorce becomes uncommon. Eighty-one percent of all
divorces occur before age 45 among women; 74 percent of all divorces
happen before age 45 among men. 55

This seems strange. You would think that partners would become
bored or sated with one another as they age, or that they would
abandon their marriage after their children have left home for work or
college. Not so. Instead, men and women divorce with impressive
regularity when they are in their twenties—during the height of their
reproductive and parenting years.

We leave one another with children too.

A third pattern to emerge from the United Nations data regards

"divorce with dependent children/' Among the hundreds of millions of
people recorded in forty-five societies between 1950 and 1989, 39
percent of all divorces occurred among couples with no dependent
children, 26 percent among those with one dependent child, 19
percent among couples with two "issue," 7 percent among those with
three children, 3 percent among couples with four young, and couples
with five or more dependent young rarely split. 56 Hence it appears
that the more children a couple bear, the less likely they are to divorce.

This third pattern is less conclusively demonstrated by the UN data

than the first two. 57 Yet it is strongly suggested and it makes genetic
sense. From a Darwinian perspective, couples with no children should
break up; both individuals will mate again and probably goon to bear
young—ensuring their genetic futures. As couples bear more children
they become less economically able to abandon their growing family.
And it is genetically logical that they remain together to raise their
flock.

But we can say this "for sure": one-quarter of all divorces involve one
dependent child; almost 20 percent occur among couples with

ANATOMY OF LOVE

two offspring. A lot of people divorce after they have had a child or
two.

I am often asked, "Which sex more often leaves the other?"

We will never know. Laws and customs often dictate which spouse
begins divorce proceedings. But which individual actually initiates the
emotional, physical, and legal separation is not measurable. After all
the arguing and tears are over, sometimes even the parties involved
are not sure who left whom. But one thing is certain: the vast majority
of people wed again.

American women ''typically'' remarry about four years after divorcing,

whereas men "typically" wed three years after breaking a former tie.
58 The average period of time between divorce and remarriage is three
years. 59 And the median number of years between divorce and
remarriage ranges from three to four and a half years, depending on
one's age. 60 Moreover, 80 percent of all divorced American men and
75 percent of all divorced American women take another spouse. 61

In 1979 the peak age category for remarriage among American men
was 30-34; the peak age category for remarriage among American
women was 25-29. The percentage of men and women in other
cultures who remarry is not calculated by United Nations census
takers. But among ninety-eight cultures surveyed between 1971 and
1982, the peak age for remarriage among men was 30-34 while the
peak age for remarriage among women was 25-29—the same as in the
United States. 62

Planned Obsolescence of the Pair-bond?

Perhaps. Marriage clearly shows several general patterns of decay.

Divorce counts peak among couples married about four years. Divorce
risk is greatest among spouses in their twenties—people at the height
of their reproductive years. A great many divorces occur among
partners with one or two children. Divorced persons remarry while
they are young. And the longer a couple remain together, the older the
partners get, and probably the more offspring they pro-

duce, the less likely spouses are to leave each other. 63

This is not to say that everybody fits this mold. George Bush, for
example, does not. But Shakespeare did. He left his wife, Anne, in
Stratford to pursue his career in London some three to four years after
wedding. 64 Etched in Shakespeare's marriage and in all these other
divorces recorded from around the world is a blueprint, a primitive
design. The human animal seems built to court, to fall in love, and to
marry one person at a time; then, at the height of our reproductive
years, often with a single child, we divorce; then, a few years later, we
remarry once again.

Why did this script evolve? The explanation for these patterns of
human bonding is the core of coming chapters in this book.

Along the headwaters of the Amazon, on coral atolls in the Pacific, in

the Arctic wastes, in the Australian outback, and in other remote parts
of the world, men and women leave each other too. Few scientists or
census takers have asked these out-of-the-way peoples how long their
marriages lasted, how old they were when they divorced, or how many
children were involved. But the scant data should be reviewed.
Among the traditional jungle-living Yanomamo of Venezuela, nearly
100 percent of all infants live with their natural mother; the majority
also have their natural father living with them. But the co-residence of
the biological parents declines sharply after the child reached the age
of five—not just because a parent dies but because spouses divorce. 65
Among the Fort Jameson Ngoni of southern Africa divorces peak
between the fourth and fifth year of marriage too. 66 These data are
consistent with the four-year itch.

Also consistent with the United Nation data are all the marriages that
break up among the young. On the Truk Islands of Micronesia, and
among several gardening-hunting peoples of New Guinea, Africa, the
Pacific, and the Amazon, marriages are exceedingly brittle among
couples in their teens and twenties. 67

People around the world will tell you that a marriage strengthens
when a child is born. 68 For example, in rural Japan a marriage is
often not even noted by village record keepers until a child is pro-

duced. 69 Andaman Islanders of India do not consider a marriage fully

consummated until spouses become parents. 70 And the Tiv of Nigeria
call a union a "trial marriage" until an infant cements the pair. 71

But we shouldn't assume that the birth of a child necessarily produces

lifelong marriage. 72 I suspect the Aweikoma of eastern Brazil best
illustrate trends in traditional societies. Here typically "a couple with
several children stays together til death. . . . But separations before
many children are born are legion." 73 This is exactly the pattern that
emerges from the United Nations data.

There are exceptions, of course. Among the Kanuri Muslims of Nigeria

divorces peak prior to the first full year of marriage. Anthropologist
Ronald Cohen thinks this early divorce peak occurs because "young
girls tend not to stay with first husbands whom they are forced to
marry by parents." 74 Interestingly, the !Kung Bushmen also divorce
within months of wedding, and they also have arranged first
marriages. 75
Even this is consistent with the United Nations sample, although it is
the exception, not the rule. As you recall, Egypt and other Muslim
countries all exhibit a divorce peak before the first full year of
marriage. And these countries have high incidences of arranged first
marriages. An arranged marriage may provoke one to bail out fast,
accelerating the four-year itch.

All sorts of cultural mores skew patterns of human bonding; the

economic autonomy of women, urbanism, secularism, and arranged
marriages make up but a fraction. Despite these influences, human
mating has some general rules: women and men from western Siberia
to the southern tip of South America marry. Many leave each other.
Many depart around the fourth year after wedding. Many leave when
they are young. Many divorce with a single child. And many remarry
once again.

Year upon decade upon century we replay these ancient scripts—

strutting, preening, flirting, courting, dazzling, then capturing one
another. Then nesting. Then breeding. Then philandering. Then
abandoning the fold. Soon drunk on hope, we court anew. Eternal

optimist, the human animal seems restless during reproductive years,

then settles in as he or she matures.

Why? The answer lies, I think, in the vagaries of our past, "when wild
in woods the noble savage ran."

'When Wild in Wx>ds the Noble Savage Ran'

Lite among Our Ancestors in the Trees

I am as free as Nature first made man

Ere the base laws of servitude began

When wild in woods the noble savage ran.

— John Dryden, The Conquest of Granada

M,

.ahogany trees, tropical evergreens, laurels, wild pear trees, litchi fruit
trees, mango trees, rubber trees, myrrh trees, ebony trees—trees, trees,
and more trees stretched from Kenya's sandy shores to the Atlantic
Ocean. 1 Twenty million years ago equatorial Africa was a curtain of
impenetrable green. Glades, pools, swamps, and streams, even more
open woodlands and grassy plains occasionally interrupted these
forests. But fossilized seeds, fruits, and nuts dug up at Rusinga Island
in Lake Victoria, and nearby sites suggest that East Africa was largely
windless woods. 2 Butterflies danced in the dim light that filtered
through the sky of leaves. Flying squirrels glided from bow to bow and
bats hung in darkened crevices. Ancient relatives of rhinos, elephants,
hippos, warthogs, okapi, tusked deer, and other forest creatures fed
among the ferns. And golden moles, elephant shrews, hamsters,
hedgehogs,

mice, gerbils, and many other small creatures gathered insect larvae,
earthworms, herbs, or berries on the damp forest floor. The
temperature was slightly higher than it is today, and almost every
afternoon rain poured onto the steamy jungles, feeding the lakes and
streams with fresh water, pelting the upper stories of the thick forest
canopy.

Ancient relatives of ours roamed among these trees.

They have an array of scientific names, but they are known collectively
as the hominoids—the ancestors of apes and humans. Hundreds of
their fossil teeth and bones have been found in East Africa (as well as
in Eurasia), dating from between twenty-three and fourteen million
years ago. Each had a mixture of ape-like and monkeylike features,
although some looked more like monkeys while others had more
characteristics of apes. 3

The bones of one species found on Rusinga Island suggest that this
creature was about the size of a modern house cat, whereas others
were as big as modern chimps. None resembled human beings. But
from among these kin both our ancestors and the living great apes
would one day emerge.

How the hominoids spent their days and nights is difficult to say.
Perhaps some ran along the tops of tree limbs the way many monkeys
do, leaping from branch to branch and climbing to follow adjacent
highways above the ground. Some may have hung below the tree limbs
and swung beneath them instead.

This distinction is actually important to human evolution, for these are

quite different ways to move around. When the precursors of apes and
humans abandoned life atop the stronger central limbs to hang below
smaller branches, they evolved the basic structures of our human
frame. To begin with, our ancestors lost their tails. These graceful
appendages served their predecessors as the balancing pole serves the
acrobat—a righting device perfectly designed to provide added
stability as they scurried along the top of sturdy boughs. But as the
forebears of the apes and man began to hang below the branches, tails
became baggage that nature could discard.

Other streamlining features were adopted for swinging below the

branches, too, particularly adjustments of the shoulder, arm, and
torso. Gently pick up the family kitten by its forelimbs and watch its
head dangle behind its paws; the cat cannot see between its limbs.

ANATOMY OF LOVE

Then find a jungle gym in a playground and hang by your arms. Notice
how your shoulders do not collapse before your face; you can see
between your elbows as you suspend. The human collarbone, the
position of our shoulder blades across our backs, our broad
breastbone, or sternum, our wide, shallow ribcage, and our reduced
lumbar vertebrae all evolved for hanging the body from above rather
than supporting it from underneath.

Equally distinctive, humans and all the apes can rotate their wrists 180
degrees. Hence you and I can swing across a jungle gym palm up or
palm away. Our ancestors acquired all of these anatomical features of
the arms and upper body in order to dangle from tree limbs, swing
below these delicate boughs, and feed on fruit and flowers long ago.

Exactly when this occurred has been debated for decades. One
suggestion is that these ancestors began to diverge from primitive
monkeys and hang below the branches as early as thirty million years
ago 4 but remained generalized ape-like and monkey-like creatures
until some sixteen million years ago. 5 So we do not know how the
hominoids propelled themselves twenty million years ago.

But they lived among the leaves. And from the dozens of jaws and
teeth they left behind it is obvious that these creatures spent much of
their days collecting fruit. 6 With their projecting snouts, shearing
fangs, and bucked front teeth, these hominoids plucked, stripped,
husked, and shelled their daily fare. They must have drunk from tulip-
shaped bromeliads, from other plants, and from crannies that cupped
water from the daily rains. And certainly they chattered with their
companions, jockeyed for rank and food, and tucked into the crotches
of sturdy limbs to sleep.

Jungle Love

No doubt the hominoids "made love" too. Perhaps they even felt mild
infatuation as they sniffed and stroked and groomed one another prior
to copulation. But it is unlikely that sex was daily fare for these early
relatives of ours. Why? Because all female primates— except women—
have a period of heat, or estrus. Female monkeys of some species come
into heat seasonally; other monkeys and all the apes have a monthly
menstrual cycle, much like that of women. But

in the middle of each rotation, which can last from about twenty-eight
days to more than forty-five, they come into heat for a period of one to
about twenty days, depending on the species and the individual.

Baboons illustrate a common primate pattern of sexuality, and their

sex lives say several things about coitus among our hominoid relatives
twenty million years ago.
With the beginning of estrus a female baboon's odor changes, and the
"sex skin" around her genitals swells, announcing her fertility like a
flag. She begins to "present," tipping her buttocks, looking over her
shoulder, crouching, and backing toward males to invite copulation.
When her period of heat wanes, however, a female baboon regularly
refuses coitus—until next month. Females do not normally copulate
when they are pregnant. And after parturition they do not resume
estrus or regular sexual activity until they have weaned their young—a
period of about five to twenty-one months. Hence female baboons are
available for sex only about one twenty-fifth of their adult lives. 7

Our ancestors may have been no more sexually active.

The sex lives of several apes confirm this. Female "common" chimps
have a period of heat that lasts some ten to fourteen days; female
gorillas come into heat for one to four days; and orangutans display
estrus about five to six days of their monthly menstrual cycles. 8
Among these wild relatives of ours, the vast majority of copulations
occur during this period of heat. 9 At pregnancy these apes cease
cycling and stop regular sexual activity. And estrus does not resume
until a mother has weaned her young—a period of postpartum sexual
quiescence that lasts three to four years among common chimps and
gorillas, much longer among orangutans. 10 Only pygmy chimps
copulate more regularly. But because these creatures exhibit an
unusual pattern of sexuality, they probably do not qualify as a useful
model for life as it was some twenty million years ago. 11

Indeed, our ancestors in the trees were probably like ordinary

primates—and sex was periodic. Some females were sexier than
others, just as some apes and women are today. Some had longer
periods of heat; some were more popular with the males. But coupling
was most likely confined to the time of estrus. Placid days may have

become orgiastic as females came into heat and males struggled

among the branches for the privilege of coitus. But females must have
resumed sexual quiescence during pregnancy, then abstained until
they weaned their young. They probably had sex no more than a few
intermittent weeks every few years.
Even ordinary primates make exceptions, however, and that leads me
to offer a few more speculations about sex among our furry forebears.
Because social upheaval stimulates females of many species to
copulate at times other than midcycle estrus, it is likely that a new
leader, a new member in the group, or some special food item like
meat provoked some females to copulate when they were not in heat.
12 Females probably used sex to get delicacies and make friends.

Females probably occasionally stole a little sex while pregnant or

nursing too. Rhesus monkeys, as well as common chimps and gorillas,
sometimes copulate during the first few months of pregnancy 13 or
before they have weaned an infant. 14 So it is reasonable to suggest
that our ancestors also did so. Sometimes they may have masturbated,
as gorillas do. 15 Since homosexuality is known among female gorillas,
chimps, and many other species, our female forebears must have
mounted or rubbed against one another for stimulation. 16 Last,
because male apes sometimes force females into coitus when they are
not receptive, female hominoids were no doubt occasionally raped. 17

We can say nothing more about the sexuality or mating system of

these early creatures except that profound changes in the weather
would push some of them imperceptibly toward humanity—and our
worldwide penchant to flirt, to fall in love, to marry, to be unfaithful,
to divorce, and to pair again.

It all began with churning molten currents of the inner earth.

Commotion in the Ocean

Twenty million years ago Africa and Arabia formed a single island
continent that lay slightly south of its position today. 18 To the north
lay a sea, the Tethys Ocean, that stretched from the Atlantic in the
west to the Pacific in the east, connecting the waters of the world. At
the time, this sluice was the earth's radiator. Hot bottom waters from
the Tethys swept around the globe, heating tides and winds

that bathed the world's beaches with warm waves and its forests with
warm rain. 19
This furnace would disappear. Pulled by fiery currents beneath the
land, the African-Arabian plate of the earth's crust began to shift to the
north some seventeen or more million years ago and slammed into
what we now call the Middle East to make the Zagros, the Taurus, and
the Caucasus mountain ranges. Soon an immense land corridor
stretched from Africa into Eurasia, connecting the vast forests of the
ancient world. 20

Now the Tethys was squeezed in half. From its western portion, what
would become the Mediterranean Sea, warm salty water still spilled
into the Atlantic Ocean. But the eastern Tethys, what later evolved into
the Indian Ocean, no longer received tropical currents. The Atlantic
and the Indo-Pacific oceans were disconnected: warm tides no longer
swept around the globe, warming the jungles of the ancient world. 21
Since the dawn of the Cenozoic era, when the mammals replaced the
dinosaurs over sixty-five million years ago, world temperatures had
begun to drop. Now they plunged again. In Antarctica ice caps formed
on mountaintops. Along the equator the land began to dry.

The earth was cooling down.

Further climatic upheavals struck East Africa. Earlier jostling of the

earth's crust had left two yawning gashes, parallel rifts that stretched
five thousand kilometers from today's northern Ethiopia south
through Malawi. But as the African-Arabian continent drifted north,
these rifts began to spread apart. Between them the ground sank,
forming the East African landscape we know today, a series of low
valleys nestled between mountainous highlands on either side. 22

Clouds from equatorial Africa now dumped warm moisture before

they rose over the western shoulder of the Western Rift, while trade
winds from the Indian Ocean dumped their rain before rising over the
Eastern Rift. The Rift Valley region of East Africa came into "rain
shadow." Where mists had veiled the morning sun, now days were
clear and parched.

Seasons soon marked the ceaseless round of births and deaths.

Monsoons still swept off the Indian Ocean between October and April
seventeen million years ago, but by May many of the tropical

plants were dormant. Fig trees, acacia trees, and mango and wild pear
trees no longer bore their fruit or flowers all year long; tender buds,
new leaves, and shoots burgeoned only in the rainy season. 23 Hot
rains that had soaked East Africa every afternoon were becoming a
thing of the past.

Even worse, volcanoes began to spray forth molten rock. Some had
begun to spout as early as twenty million years ago. But by sixteen
million years ago, Tinderet, Yelele, Napak, Moroto, Kadam, Elgon, and
Kisingeri threw off streams of lava and clouds of ash on the animals
and plants below. 24

With the cooling of the earth, the effects of rain shadow, and the active
volcanoes in the region, the tropical forests of East Africa began to
shrink—as woods were thinning around the world.

Replacing all these trees were two new ecological niches: the
woodlands and the savannahs. 25 Along lakes and riverbanks, trees
still packed together. But where the ground rose and streams turned
into rivulets, the woodlands appeared. Here single-story trees
stretched out, barely touching one another with their boughs. And
where water was even scarcer, herbs and grasses that had struggled to
survive below a dome of branches began to spread into miles and
miles of wooded and savannah plains. 26 By fourteen million years
ago the lush, protective world of the hominoids was coming to an end.

Havoc reigned.

So did opportunity.

Around this time many forest animals died out. The tiny ancient
relatives of the horse and other creatures migrated into Africa from the
dwindling forests of Eurasia. And many other species emerged from
forest glades to congregate in larger groups and evolve into novel
species on the veldt. Among these immigrants to the grasslands were
the forerunners of the modern rhino and giraffe, the ostrich, myriad
kinds of antelopes, and other browsing and grazing herbivores that
swarm the Serengeti Plains today. Evolving with them were their
predators, lions, cheetahs, and other carnivores, as well as jackals and
hyenas—the garbage collectors of the ancient world. 27

Turmoil in the ocean, the new land bridge to the north, seasonality,
the thinning forest canopy, and the expanding woodlands and grassy
plains would enormously affect the hominoids. By fifteen million years
ago our precursors had experienced an "adaptive radiation." Due
undoubtedly to the new highway out of Africa, some trickled into
France, Spain, and Hungary and on to Asia before most vanished from
the fossil record some eleven million years ago. Several strains
flourished, then disappeared—dead ends.

Most interesting of these explorers was a group known collectively as

the ramamorphs (including Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus), some of
which have long been hailed the missing link. These "nutcrackers"
appeared in East Africa about fourteen million years ago, then
radiated through the Middle East to India and China. The thick
enamel on their molar teeth suggests they roamed the woods eating
nuts and fruits with tough rinds, although they probably also forayed
into more-open countryside. 28 They appear to have died out some
eight million years ago.

Who were the ramamorphs? Today some anthropologists think these

animals were ancient relatives of the orangutans, crumpled-looking,
red-haired apes that still live in the shrinking jungles of Southeast
Asia. 29 Others maintain that from within this general stock, our
humanlike forebears (as well as all the living apes) would emerge. 30
This argument isn't resolved. At its core remains the basic question:
What was the missing link—that breed of hominoid to descend from
the fast-disappearing trees of Africa and begin the march toward
humankind? We still don't know.

By six million years ago grasses reigned across East Africa; conditions
were ripe for the emergence of humankind. Bits and pieces of
humanlike fossil bones have been found, but not enough to fill a shoe
box. And virtually no fossils of primitive apes have been uncovered
from this time block. So scientists have no extensive evidence of that
arboreal ancestor who would emerge on the plains to build the world
of sex we struggle with today.

One essential clue has materialized, however. From biochemical

similarities of blood proteins and other molecules, scientists have
established that the ancestors of the orangutan split off from this basic
ramamorph stock somewhere around ten million years ago.
Consequently we are most closely related to the African apes, goril-

las, and chimpanzees. Our hominid forebears probably diverged from

the ancestors of these creatures as recently as four or five million years
ago. 31

Friends you pick, relatives you are stuck with. So this genetic link to
the African apes is important to the story of human love; nature plays
with what she's got—upon the adaptations of one creature she selects
new designs. So although the African apes have certainly evolved over
past millennia, their close biological ties to humankind make them
excellent models for reconstructing life as it may have been just before
our ancestors were forced from the vanishing forests of East Africa,
just before human patterns of marriage, adultery, and divorce evolved.

Gorilla Tactics

Gorillas live in harems. Today these shy, beguiling creatures still roam
the dormant Virunga volcanoes of Zaire, Uganda, and Rwanda. Until
her murder in the jungle in 1985, anthropologist Dian Fossey studied
thirty-five of these gorilla bands, recording their daily lives for some
eighteen years.

Each gorilla harem is led by a single adult silverback male (so-called

because of the saddle of silvery hair that spreads across his back) and
at least two "wives." Often a black-backed (subadult) or a younger fully
adult male occupies a lesser position at the flank of a gorilla band,
accompanied by his younger wives. So the leader, the younger males,
their wives, and a gaggle of sundry young wander together among the
moss-laden hagenia trees, foraging for thistle and wild celery in the
mist and underbrush, deep in the heart of Africa.

Female gorillas begin to copulate by age nine to eleven. As her

monthly one- to four-day estrous period starts, a female begins to
court the group's highest-ranking male that is not her father or full
sibling. 32 She tips her buttocks toward him, looks into his brown
eyes, and backs assertively toward him, rubbing her genitals
rhythmically against him or sitting on his lap to copulate face-to-face.
All the while she makes soft, high, fluttering calls. 33

If no eligible "husband" is available, however, she leaves her natal

band to join another group where a suitable male resides. And if no

partner is present there either, she joins a solitary bachelor and travels
independently with him. If her mate cannot entice a second female to
join them within a few months, however, a female will desert her lover
and travel with a harem. Female gorillas do not tolerate monogamy;
they seek harem life.

Young males are also mobile. If a black-backed male reaches puberty

in a band where one or more young adult females reside, he often
remains in his natal group to breed with them. But if no females have
reached puberty or if all are full siblings, he either transfers to another
group or wanders as a solitary bachelor in order to attract young
females for a harem of his own. This mobility inhibits incest. In fact,
on only one occasion did Fossey witness incest: a silverback mated
with his daughter. Curiously, months after she gave birth, the infant
was killed by family members. Evidence of bone splinters in their feces
indicates that the baby was partially eaten too. 34

Once a harem is established, the husband and his co-wives settle

down; normally they mate for life—sunbathing when the sun breaks
through, moving in their rhythmic round of work and play.
Occasionally a female leaves her spouse to join a different mate—serial
monandry. 35 But this is rare. Mates are not necessarily sexually
faithful to their partners, though. An estrous female mates only with
her husband, who interrupts her sexual overtures to other males. Once
pregnant, however, a female often begins to copulate with lower-
ranking males—directly under her husband's nose. And unless sex
becomes too vigorous, her spouse does not interrupt these rendezvous.
Gorillas philander and tolerate adultery.

Did our arboreal ancestors living six million years ago travel in harems
as gorillas do? Did males and females mate for life, then copulate
occasionally with other members of the band? Perhaps.

There are major differences between human sexual tastes and the
reproductive habits of gorillas, however. Gorillas always copulate in
public, whereas a hallmark of human coupling is privacy. More
important, male gorillas always form harems. Not so men. As you
know, the vast majority of human males have only a single wife at
once. Female gorillas and human females have even less in common.

Although women do join harems, they usually bicker with their co-
wives. Women are not temperamentally built for harem life.

What most distinguishes human beings from gorillas, though, is the

length of our "relationships." Gorillas almost always mate for life.
People, on the other hand, tend to switch partners—sometimes several
times. For us, long marriages take work.

The Primal Horde

Darwin, Freud, Engels, and many other thinkers have postulated that
our earliest ancestors lived in a "primal horde"—that men and women
copulated with whom they liked, when they liked. 36 As Lucretius, the
Roman philosopher, wrote in the first century a.d., 'The human beings
that lived in those days in the fields were a tougher sort of people, as
the tough earth had made them. . . . They lived for many revolutions of
the sun, roaming far and wide in the manner of wild beasts. And
Venus joined the bodies of lovers in the forest; for they were brought
together by mutual desire, or by the frenzied force and violent lust of
the man, or by a bribe of acorns, pears, or arbute-berries." 37

Lucretius may have been correct. Our closest relatives, common

chimpanzees and pygmy chimpanzees, live in hordes, and sexual
bribery is commonplace—particularly among pygmy chimps, the
smaller of the two species. Moreover, we are as genetically similar to
these chimpanzees as the domesticated dog is to the wolf. So we can
surmise a lot about our past from examining their lives.

Today pygmy chimps {Pan paniscus), commonly called bonobos,

remain in a few swampy jungles that hug the Zaire (Congo) River.
Here they display feats of acrobatics, arm swinging, leaping, diving,
and walking on two limbs like tightrope artists often a hundred feet
above the ground. They spend most of their time moving on the forest
floor, however, strolling through the woods on all four limbs, looking
for juicy fruits, seeds, shoots, leaves, honey, worms, and caterpillars,
digging holes to excavate mushrooms, or stealing sugarcane and
pineapples from farmers. 38

They eat meat too. On two occasions anthropologists saw males stalk
flying squirrels—unsuccessfully. In two other instances males silently
caught and killed a small forest antelope, a duiker, and shared its
meat. And the local villagers say bonobos dig in the mud beside
streams to collect fish and scatter termite mounds to eat the milling
residents. 39 Perhaps our ancestors hunted animals and collected
other proteins to supplement their diet of fruit and nuts.

Anthropologists are just beginning to learn about bonobo social life.

From what they can make out, these creatures travel in mixed groups
of males, females, and young. Some parties are small; two to eight
individuals often travel in a relatively stable band. Yet fifteen to thirty,
even a hundred individuals sometimes assemble to eat, relax, or sleep
near one another. And individuals come and go between groups,
depending on the food supply, connecting a cohesive community of
several dozen animals. Here is a primal horde.

Sex is almost a daily pastime. Female bonobos have an extended

monthly period of heat, stretching through almost three-quarters of
their menstrual cycle. But sex, as mentioned earlier, is not confined to
estrus. Females copulate during most of their menstrual cycles—a
pattern of coitus more similar to women's than any other creature's.
40
And females bribe their male friends with sex quite regularly. A female
will walk up to a male who is eating sugarcane, sit beside him, beg
palm up, as people do, and then look plaintively at the delicacy and
back at him. He feels her gaze. When he gives her the treat, she tips
her buttocks and copulates; then she ambles off with the cane in hand.
A female is not beyond soliciting another female either, sauntering up
to a comrade, climbing into her arms face-to-face, wrapping her legs
around her waist, and rubbing her genitals on those of her partner
before accepting sticks of cane. Male-male homosexuality, fellatio, also
occurs. 41

Bonobos engage in sex to ease tension, to stimulate sharing during

meals, to reduce stress while traveling, and to reaffirm friendships
during anxious reunions. "Make love, not war" is clearly a bonobo
scheme.

Did our ancestors do the same?

Bonobos, in fact, display many of the sexual habits people exhibit

ANATOMY OF LOVE

on the streets, in the bars and restaurants, and behind apartment

doors in New York, Paris, Moscow, and Hong Kong. Prior to coitus
bonobos often stare deeply into each other's eyes. As I have
mentioned, this copulatory gaze is a central component of human
courtship too. And bonobos, like human beings, walk arm in arm, kiss
each Other's hands and feet, and embrace with long, deep, tongue-
intruding French kisses. 42

Darwin suspected kissing was natural to people. Although aware that

this practice was unknown in several cultures, he thought the drive to
caress a beloved was innate.

He was right. Over 90 percent of all peoples on record kiss. Until

Western contact, kissing was reportedly unknown among the Somali,
the Lepcha of Sikkim, and the Siriono of South America, whereas the
Thonga of South Africa and a few other peoples traditionally found
kissing disgusting. 43 But even in these societies lovers patted, licked,
rubbed, sucked, nipped, or blew on each other's faces prior to
copulation. The world's great kissers are the Hindus and Westerners;
we have made the kiss an art. But bonobos—and a lot of other animals
—share our fondness of the kiss.

Bonobos in the San Diego Zoo also copulate in the missionary position
(face-to-face with the male on top) 70 percent of the time, although
this may be because they have access to a flat dry surface. 44 In the
African forest 40 of 106 observed copulations were face-to-face; the
balance were in the rear-entry pose instead. 45 But pygmy
chimpanzees like variety. A female will sit on a male's lap to copulate,
couple face-to-face from on top of him, crouch while her partner
stands, have intercourse while both are standing, or have coitus while
hanging in a tree. Sometimes the two manipulate each other's genitals
while mating. And they always gaze at each other as they "make love."

Our last tree-dwelling ancestors probably kissed and hugged prior to

coitus too; maybe they even "made love" en face while looking deep
into each other's eyes. 46

Because bonobos appear to be the smartest of the apes, because they

have many physical traits quite similar to people's, and because

these chimps copulate with flair and frequency, some anthropologists

conjecture that bonobos are much like the African hominoid
prototype, our last common tree-dwelling ancestor. 47 Maybe pygmy
chimps are living relics of our past. But they certainly manifest some
fundamental differences in their sexual behavior. For one thing,
bonobos do not form long-term pair-bonds the way humans do. Nor
do they raise their young as husband and wife. Males do care for infant
siblings, 48 but monogamy is no life for them. Promiscuity is their
fare.

If pygmy chimpanzees are what remains of our primordial ancestors

living in the trees, then human adultery is very old indeed.

Chimpanzee Days
Just as promiscuous are common chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes,
named after Pan, the spirit of Mother Nature and a god to the ancient
Greeks. Since i960 Jane Goodall has been watching these creatures at
the Gombe Stream Reserve, Tanzania, and she has observed some
remarkable behaviors that help us visualize life as it may have been
among our tree-dwelling ancestors six million years ago.

These chimps live in communities of fifteen to eighty individuals in

ranges of five to twelve square kilometers along the eastern shore of
Lake Tanganyika. "Home" varies from thick forests to more open
woodlands to stretches of savannah grass with scattered trees. Because
the food supply is dispersed and uneven, individuals are obliged to
travel in small, temporary groups.

Males move along the ground in parties of about four or five. Two or
more mothers with infants sometimes join one another for a few hours
as a "nursery" party. And individuals often amble by themselves or
with one or more friends in a small mixed-sex group. Parties are
flexible; individuals come and go. But if members of one party find a
particularly lush supply of figs, new buds, or some other delicacy, they
hoot through the forest or drum on trees with their fists. Then all
assemble for the meal.

Female common chimps have a midcycle estrus that often lasts ten to
sixteen days, and their patterns of sexuality strike me as the best
model for life as it was among our ancestors long ago. 49

ANATOMY OF LOVE

As a female comes into heat, the sex skin around her genitals balloons
like a huge pink flower—a passport to male activities. She often joins
an all-male party and proceeds to seduce all except her sons and
brothers. As many as eight males may line up and wait their turn, in
what is known as opportunistic mating. Males copulate within two
minutes of one another; intromission, thrusting, and ejaculation
normally take only ten to fifteen seconds. 50

More dominant courtiers may attempt to monopolize an estrous

female instead, what is called "possessive mating." A male will stare
intently to get a female's attention, sit with his legs open to display an
erect penis, flick it, rock from side to side, beckon her with
outstretched arms, swagger in front of her, or follow a female
doggedly. 51 One male slept on the ground in the rain all night waiting
for a nesting estrous female to arise. When a male succeeds in
attracting a female to his side, he sticks close to her and tries to
prevent copulations with other males. Sometimes males even chase,
charge, or attack other suitors. But confrontations of this sort take
precious time—minutes the female sometimes uses to copulate with as
many as three other admirers.

Female chimps are sexually aggressive. On one occasion Flo, the

sexiest of the chimps at Gombe, copulated several dozen times during
the course of a single day. Adolescent females are sometimes
insatiable, even tweaking the flaccid penises of uninterested
companions. Some females appear to masturbate as well. Moreover,
female chimps can be picky. They prefer males who groom them and
give them food—not necessarily the most dominant individuals in the
male hierarchy. 52 Some courtiers they flatly refuse. With others they
have long-standing friendships and copulate more regularly. And both
sexes avoid coitus with close relatives, such as mother or siblings. 53

Female chimps like sexual adventure. Adolescent females at Gombe

often leave their natal group for the duration of estrus to join males in
a neighboring community, a habit many continue as adults. Strange
males see the enlarged, pink sex skin of an estrous female and inspect
her vulva. Then they copulate rather than attack the stranger. Like
some human teenagers, female common chimps regularly leave home
to mate. Some return; others transfer permanently instead.

Were ancestral hominoid women sexually aggressive? Did they join

all-male parties during estrus, copulate with these bachelors,
masturbate at times, and make friends with specific males? Probably.

They may have made longer partnerships as well.

Making Dates
Sometimes an estrous female and a single male chimp vanish to
copulate out of sight and earshot—what is known as going on safari. 54
These trysts are often initiated by the male. With hair and penis erect,
he beckons, rocks from side to side, waves branches, and gazes
intently at his potential paramour. When she moves toward him, he
turns and walks away, hoping she will follow. These gestures become
more intense until she does his bidding. Sometimes a male even
attacks a female until she acquiesces.

Here, then, are traces of monogamy—complete with coitus in privacy.

These clandestine consortships often last several days; a few last
several weeks. And they have reproductive payoffs. At least half of the
fourteen pregnancies recorded at Gombe occurred while a female was
on safari. 55 Perhaps our ancestors in the trees occasionally made
similar short-term pair-bonds, vanished into the leaves to copulate
face-to-face, hugged, stroked, kissed each other's faces, hands, and
bodies, lay in each other's arms, fed each other bits of fruit, and bore
young from these "affairs."

But once again these chimps differ in a vital respect from human
beings. When a female common chimp becomes noticeably pregnant,
she begins to roam alone or joins a group of mothers and infants. And
as she nears parturition, she settles in a small "home" range. Some
females pick a spot in the center of a community; some make home at
the periphery of the neighborhood. On this turf she bears her infant
and raises it alone. Chimpanzees do not form pairbonds to rear their
young. To chimps, fathering is unknown.

Common chimps display many other social habits, however, that

would germinate among our forebears, then flourish in humankind.
Among them is war.

The males at Gombe guard the borders of their turf. Three or

more adult males set off together. Sometimes they call loudly, perhaps
to scare off outsiders, but usually they scout in silence. They stop to
stand and peer over tall grass or climb trees to scan adjacent property.
Some inspect discarded food, examine strange nests, or listen for
intruding chimps as they steal along. When they encounter neighbors,
they urinate or defecate out of nervousness and touch one another for
reassurance; then they call aggressively and perform mock charges.
Some wave branches. Some slap the ground. Some hurl or roll stones.
Then both sides retreat. 56

In 1974 a chimpanzee war erupted. In the early 1970s a splinter group

of seven males and three females had begun to travel chiefly in the
southern portion of the Kasakela community's real estate, and by 1972
these emigrants had established themselves as a separate community,
known to observers as Kahama, after this river valley to the south.
Intermittently Kasakela males met Kahama males at their new border
and called, drummed on trees and dragged branches in unfriendly
displays before mutually retreating.

In 1974, however, five Kasakela males penetrated deep into southern

territory, surprised a Kahama male, and beat him up. As Goodall
described the incident, one Kasakela male held the victim down while
others bit him, kicked him, pummeled him with their fists, and
jumped on him. Finally one male rose onto his hind legs, screamed
above the melee, and hurled a rock at the enemy. It fell short. After ten
more minutes of mayhem, the warriors abandoned the Kahama male
with bleeding wounds and broken bones. 57

Over the next three years five more Kahama males and one female met
the same fate. By 1977, Kasakela males had exterminated most of their
neighbors; the rest vanished. The Kasakela community soon extended
its range south along the shores of Lake Tanganyika. 58

Had our tree-dwelling ancestors begun to wage war on one another

some six million years ago? It seems plausible.

They probably had begun to hunt for meat as well. 59 Chimpanzee

hunters are always adults, almost always males. The victims are
normally juvenile baboons, monkeys, bushbuck, or bushpigs.
Sometimes a male simply seizes an unsuspecting monkey feeding
nearby in a
tree and tears it to shreds, "opportunistic hunting." But planned,
cooperative group hunting expeditions are also common. The hunt is
always silent. Only the direction of the hunter's gaze, his ruffled hair,
his cocked head, the determination of his gait, or exchanged glances
alert others that the chase is on. Then a group of males surround their
victim together.

As soon as one chimp grabs the prey, a tug-of-war begins. Each hunter
hollers and retreats with pieces, and minutes later all in earshot
assemble to form "sharing clusters" around possessors of the spoils.
Some chimps beg, palm up; others stare at the possessor or the meat;
still others retrieve dropped morsels from the foliage below. Then
everyone sits to eat, leisurely adding leaves to supplement the protein
—the proverbial steak-and-salad dinner. Sometimes it takes a dozen
chimps all day to consume a carcass weighing less than twenty
pounds, an event not unlike an American Christmas dinner.

Chimps do fight over meat. Tempers sometimes flare, but interestingly

rank does not guarantee a larger portion. In this one aspect of
chimpanzee social life, subordinates do not defer to leaders. Instead,
age has clout. So does sex appeal. And estrous females always receive
extra pieces. 60

Forethought, group hunting, cooperation, sharing—these hunting

skills would be greatly improved by our ancestors, for one key element
of human hunting is often missing among these chimps: the use of
weapons. On only one occasion did a Gombe chimp use an implement
to fell quarry. A group of males had surrounded four bushpigs, and the
hunters were trying to extricate a piglet from their midst. Finally one
aged male hurled a melon-sized rock, striking an adult pig. The
bushpigs fled. Immediately the chimp hunters captured, disassembled,
and devoured the youngster. 61

Chimps use weapons more often when confronting one another,

however. 62 They drop tree limbs on those beneath them, whip their
enemies with saplings, rise onto their hind legs to brandish sticks, hurl
rocks and branches, and drag logs or roll stones as they charge their
adversaries. Perhaps when our tree-dwelling ancestors were not
courting estrous females, they were making war, hunting, or attack-

ing one another with sticks and stones. Most likely they also spent a
good deal of time just trying to keep the peace. 63

Male chimps use weapons regularly, but females make and use tools
more often—particularly when they gather insects. 64 Female chimps
"dip" for ants, opening a subterranean ant nest with their fingers and
inserting a slender twig. As the ants stream up the pole, the hunter
plunges the tiny, milling creatures into her mouth like peanuts—
chewing frantically to devour the ants before they bite her tongue.
Chimps also use rocks to open nuts and tough-skinned fruits. They
fish in the tunnels of termite compounds with long grass stems, and
they use leaves to wipe dirt from their bodies, sticks to pick their teeth,
leaves to fan away flies, chewed leaves to sop water from a tree crotch,
and sticks and stones to hurl at cats and snakes and hostile
chimpanzees. 65

Our ancestors must have used tools regularly.

Dentistry and doctoring probably also came from our tree-dwelling

predecessors. At Gombe the budding chimp "dentist," Belle, used twigs
to clean the teeth of a young male as he held his mouth wide open. On
one occasion she made a successful extraction too— pulling out an
infected tooth as her patient lay still, head back, mouth gaping. 66 At
the Primate Research Center at Central Washington University a
young male used a twig to clean a foot sore on one of his companions.
67 Chimps also pick away scabs when they groom one another.

Chimps do not desert their dying either. After a female chimp at

Gombe was attacked by a group of males, her daughter sat beside her
crushed body for hours, brushing off the flies until her mother passed
away. But the juvenile did not leave a leaf, a branch, or stone to
commemorate the death. Only elephants "bury" their companions,
placing branches over the head and shoulders of their deceased. 68

In addition, our tree-dwelling ancestors probably had a rich world of

etiquette six million years ago. Chimps today give gifts of leaves and
twigs to their chimp superiors. They bow to high-ranking companions.
They keep "friends" and travel with these companions. They shake
hands, stroke one another reassuringly, and pat each

other's fannies the way football players do. They clench their teeth and
draw back their lips into the "human" nervous social smile. They pout,
sulk, and stage tantrums. And they groom each other regularly,
picking grass and dirt from each other's hair much as we pick lint from
someone else's sweater.

Noble Savages

Did our last tree-dwelling relatives live in communities like

chimpanzees? 69 Did they gang up on one another, protect their
boundaries, and war on neighbors, a consuming passion of humanity
today? Did they think ahead, use sticks to dip for ants, cooperate to
hunt for meat, and share the spoils? It seems reasonable.

Some may have been early doctors; others, warriors. They probably
played practical jokes like dumping water or foliage on an
unsuspecting comrade, because chimps love to be buffoons and play
pranks on one another. Some of our forebears must have been serious,
some inventive, some shy, some courageous, some sweet, some self-
centered, some patient, some sneaky, some petty—as people and all
the apes can be.

They must have had a sense of family too. Chimpanzees, gorillas, and
all the higher primates associate regularly with mother, sisters, and
brothers. And they probably gave gifts to friends, were scared of
strangers, had tiffs with peers, bowed to superiors, kissed their lovers,
walked arm in arm, and held hands and feet. They undoubtedly
communicated their fondness, amusement, irritation, and many other
emotions with facial expressions, giggles, pants, and hoots. And surely
they spent a great deal of time sitting on the forest floor, patting,
stroking, hugging, picking dirt and leaves from one another, playing
with their infants, friends, and lovers.

Maybe they vanished into the forest with a consort for a few days or
weeks of private sex. Perhaps some even felt adoration for this
temporary mate or sadness when the safari ended. But most likely sex
was a casual affair. Six million years ago children grew up under the
tutelage of mother and her female friends. The "father," the
"husband," the "wife," our human reproductive strategy of serial
monogamy and clandestine adultery had not yet evolved.

But the stage was set; the players in the wings. Soon our ancestors
would be forced out of Eden—into the woodlands and grasslands of
the ancient world. Here they would develop a dual craving for devotion
and philandering that would plague their descendants to this day.

Out oi Eden

A Theory on the Origin 01 Monogamy ana Desertion

The beast and bird their common charge attend,

The mothers nurse it, and the sires defend;

The young dismiss 'd to wander earth or air,

There stops the Instinct, and there ends the care;

The link dissolves, each seeks a fresh embrace,

Another love succeeds, another race. A longer care Man's helpless kind
demands; That longer care contracts more lasting bands.

— Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man

t was the beginning of the wet season in East Africa some 3.6 million
years ago. For weeks the volcano Sadiman had periodically belched
forth clouds of gray volcanic ash, daily spreading a blanket of dust on
the plains below. Every afternoon showers moistened the ash; then
during the cool evenings it hardened—engraving raindrops, acacia leaf
prints, and the tracks of passing antelopes, giraffes, rhinos, elephants,
pigs, guinea fowl, baboons, hares, insects, hyenas, a saber-toothed cat,
and some ancient relatives of ours. 1

Three primitive hominids, 2 among the earliest individuals ever found

in the line toward modern people, had picked their way through the
volcanic muck, leaving their footprints for posterity. The largest had
walked across the ash, sinking about five centimeters with every step.
Beside these prints were those of a smaller hominid,

perhaps a female, who stood a little over four feet tall. And because a
third pair of tracks were superimposed on those of the largest
creature, we deduce that a somewhat smaller hominid had followed,
stepping carefully in the footsteps of the leader. All three were heading
north to a small gorge, perhaps to camp in the trees beside the stream,
because the tracks proceed seventy-seven feet to the canyon's edge.
Then abruptly they disappear.

In 1978 Mary Leakey, the well-known archaeologist and wife of Louis

Leakey, the now deceased grand old man of African
paleoanthropology, and her team discovered these footprints eroding
out of an ancient geologic stratum. 3 Since the mid-1970s Leakey had
been excavating a site called Laetoli, an area in northern Tanzania
named by the local Masai tribesmen for a red lily that carpets the area
today. Within weeks of the 1978 field season she found these
signatures of our past. With minor variations, the footprints were just
like those of modern men and women.

Whether these creatures strolled, strode, or picked their way, even

whether they walked together or at different times, is not clear from
the many analyses of these tracks. But that they lived and died near
the gorge is beyond doubt. In other field seasons Leakey unearthed a
host of other hominid fossils—mostly skull and jaw fragments and the
isolated teeth of more than twenty-two individuals who wandered
across these grasslands below Mount Sadiman between 3.5 and 3.8
million years ago. 4
They were not alone. To the north, along what is today the Hadar
River of the Afar region of Ethiopia, lived Lucy. Anthropologist Donald
Johanson and teammates unearthed her in 1974. Named after the
Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," Lucy once stood some
three and a half feet tall, weighed about sixty pounds, and dined along
the edge of a shallow lake in what was then the rolling wooded
countryside of Ethiopia. She suffered from arthritis and died in her
early twenties, around three million years ago. 5

Johanson's team recovered about 40 percent of Lucy's skeleton. And

although her toes and fingers were curved and somewhat longer than
ours, suggesting that Lucy spent time in the trees, the remains of her
hip, knee, ankle, and foot confirm that she walked on two feet instead
of four. 6 The following year Johanson unearthed what could

have been Lucy's friends, the partial remains of at least thirteen more
individuals who strode through the woods of Ethiopia so long ago.
Now bits and pieces of perhaps fifteen more ancient hominids have
been unearthed as well.

Exactly who these hominids at Laetoli and Hadar were, we do not

know. Those who study hominid footprints are known as ichnolo-gists,
and they, as well as many other anthropologists, think a foot like
Lucy's could also have left the prints at Laetoli. So they place all these
individuals in the same early species, Australopithecus afa-rensis, a
branch of hominids somewhere near the beginning of the human line.
7

These creatures probably looked something like modern chimps, with

brains that were slightly larger (but no more than a third the size of
ours), heavy ridges at their brows, dark eyes and skin, thin lips, no
chins, and protruding jaws with bucked front teeth and shearing fangs.
Many details of their craniums, jaws, and skeletons were reminiscent
of apes, but their bodies were remarkably human. And they walked
erect. Humankind had emerged on earth.

Where had these "people" come from? How had their ancestors turned
down the road toward humanity?
(overleaf) A moment in our human ancestry: The scene depicted on
the following pages shows members of the species Australopithecus
afarensis, the first of our humanlike forebears, who had begun to live
in the woodlands and plains of East Africa by some four million years
ago. These "people" had long (and somewhat curved) fingers and toes,
short legs, long arms, small brains, projecting jaws, and other
anatomical details that distinguish them from contemporary people.
But they walked erect and had begun their march toward modern
human life. Individuals such as these probably traveled in bands of
twelve to twenty-five friends and relatives, formed pair-bonds shortly
after puberty, shared food with a mate, remained paired for at least the
infancy of a single child (about four years), and often parted when the
child became old enough to join community activities. Then typically
each formed a new pair-bond with a partner in a neighboring group
and bore more young. In subsequent chapters I propose that modern
human sexual anatomy and the human sexual emotions evolved in
conjunction with the evolution of the reproductive strategy of serial
monogamy and clandestine adultery. Illustration by Michael
Rothman.
The Crucible

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I — I took the one less traveled by,
and that has made all the difference/' Robert Frost captured that
moment in life that irrevocably changes everything that follows. Such a
time occurred in human evolution, an era when our first ancestors
stepped irreversibly away from their tree-dwelling relatives and began
along the path toward modern human social life. Silent is the fossil
record of this nativity. The "missing link" is lost in time and rock. Yet
through the centuries theologians, philosophers, and scientists have
woven, from threads of knowledge, theories of our genesis.

The following is another version. It stems from scientific data in a

variety of disciplines, including what we know of the animals and
plants that flourished across East Africa millennia ago, the lifeways of
modern apes and monkeys, the mating habits of other monogamous
species such as foxes and robins, the life-styles of modern hunting-
gathering peoples, and human patterns of infatuation, attachment,
and abandonment that I have presented in this book. Here, then, is an
hypothesis for the origin of marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

The time was somewhere between four and six million years ago; let's
make it four million—somewhat before Lucy's contemporaries left
their bones and footprints below Mount Sadiman. Beside the shallow
blue-green lakes and lazy rivers, forest trees and climbing vines
cloaked the shore. But farther from the water's edge, mahoganies and
evergreens thinned out and grew in patches between clumps of
woodland trees. And beyond the woodlands, across the rolling hills of
East Africa, stretched an ocean of grass. 8

Ancient kinds of elephants, ostriches, okapi, gazelles, zebras,

wildebeests, bushbuck, elands, buffalo, even primitive horses,
immigrants from Asia, strode across the plains. Their enemies,
ancestral lions, cheetahs, and feral dogs, followed. At dawn, at dusk,
through

the day and night, these carnivores stole the weak from among the
herds. Then vultures, hyenas, jackals, and other scavengers picked the
fallen clean. 9

It was into this landscape—the vast savanna plains—that our first

ancestors were being pushed by the shrinking of the forests. The
process had begun millennia before, when tree-dwelling, ape-like
predecessors first ventured from the forests into the boulevards of
grass that wove between more widely spaced woodland trees. 10
Perhaps small groups of males combed the woodlands for fresh meat.
Three or four related females may have appeared in the woodlands
together to look for termite mounds or ants. And sometimes whole
communities, as many as thirty individuals—the old, the young, the
adventuresome, and the fearful—congregated beneath these boughs
when the forest branches were picked clean.

How many centuries our ancestors spent in this woodland habitat we

will never know. But eventually they were pushed to the fringes of
these spreading trees. Here they sat and studied the open countryside.
The forest they left behind was full of safety zones. Even in the
woodlands trees were spread out, but escape routes were still near. On
the grassy plains there was nowhere to hide. But by roughly four
million years ago our ancestors had no choice; they had to eat. So they
probably moved cautiously into the open grass, sticking close to one
another as they marched along.

If they came upon a cashew grove or field of seeds, they hooted, calling
the less courageous onto the sun-soaked plains. And the timid came,
driven by a curiosity born of need. At first our ancestors probably
ventured into the grasslands only in the dry season, when forest and
woodland fruits and buds were hard to find. But hunger and
competition must have pushed them on. Then, like mice, like rhinos,
like many other ancient forest species, they forayed into the uncharted
grass. On the baked savannahs our first ancestors probably grabbed
and tasted ostrich eggs, nestling birds, shrews, baby antelopes, or even
unsuspecting baboons—anything that looked edible, even dead
animals.

Man the scavenger. Several anthropologists have recently proposed

that "opportunistic collecting" and scavenging preceded the hunting of
large game—that our ancestors arrived on the grasslands

of the ancient world to collect small animals and scavenge for a living.
11

Meat Pirates

Anthropologist Gary Tunnell recently tested this hypothesis; he used

bushcraft to see whether our ancestors could have survived by
opportunistic hunting and scavenging millennia ago. 12 Tunnell set up
his tent on the Serengeti Plains of East Africa in 1984. He chose an
area of six square kilometers in southwestern Kenya, part of the
Serengeti ecosystem. He shared his turf with nine lions. The trick
would be to scavenge from their dinner rather than becoming part of
it.

At night Tunnell slept below two high cliffs amid the sleeping-trees of
the local baboon troop. These neighbors alerted him when the largest
lion made his nightly visit to smell Tunnell and mark the pride's range
beside his tent. Through the night, again at dawn, Tunnell listened.
This way he established where the lions made their nightly kill. Then,
at 9 a.m., after the lions were asleep, he set out on a specific route in
search of meat.

Tunnell always found edible protein—an unwary warthog, a crippled

topi, three sleeping bats, several glutted vultures, ten catfish in a dying
pool, a three-foot lizard in a tiny canyon, or the carcass of a buffalo,
wildebeest, or Grant's gazelle killed by lions or cheetahs hours earlier.
Tunnell did not eat any of his discoveries. But he concluded that with
no more than a sharpened rock and pointed stick just one human
scavenger and a comrade to help butcher flesh could easily feed a
group of ten—as long as they stayed out of the territories of hyenas,
humankind's major competitor for flesh.

Like Tunnell, the modern Hadza of Tanzania sometimes scavenge in

the dry season. They listen to the night calls of the lions and watch the
vultures fly. On the next morning they find the kill, move in, drive
away the carnivores, and collect the meat with simple tools.

It is unlikely that our first ground-dwelling ancestors used tools the

way the Hadza do; at least we have no evidence of tools. So these first
human forebears could not have broken through the skin, chopped off
joints, or scavenged huge chunks of meat four million years ago. But
other primates occasionally scavenge—and they don't use tools. 13

Moreover, lions and cheetahs often leave their meals unfinished.

Leopards even leave their kills unattended, hanging in the tree where
they have eaten. 14 Perhaps our ancestors waited until the last of the
cats had staggered off to sleep, then crept back to the carcass to smash
the skull, collect the brains, pull off skin and tendons, and harvest
scraps of flesh. Sometimes they may have thrown stones instead,
terrifying the feeding carnivores just long enough to dart in, grab bits
of meat, and flee.

Our first ancestors undoubtedly also lived on fruits and vegetables, as

well as seeds and roots and rhizomes. 15 As you recall, among the
!Kung gatherer-hunters of southern Africa women collected over
ninety varieties of fruits and vegetables, contributing more than 65
percent of the band's daily caloric intake. 16 And !Kung women
generally went gathering only two or three days a week, taking the rest
off to relax, play games, plan rituals, and gossip. Domestic chores took
about four hours every day. 17 In fact, because of the largess the
grasslands provided, anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has called our
gathering-hunting ancestors "the original affluent society." 18

With just a stick and stone our first forebears could have eaten a rich
variety of fruits, nuts, and berries too.

Their dinners must have been interrupted frequently, however. In the

open countryside it is impossible to eat unnoticed. Eating takes time.
The big cats, primordial enemies of the primates, were at eye level.
And gone was the safety of the branches. So, like Tunnell, our first
hominid ancestors probably stayed in the short grass, kept trees and
cliffs in sight, and avoided tall grass, thickets, and the forest fringe
where lions snooze. They probably also kept an eye on the local
baboon troop. When these creatures got nervous, they became even
more vigilant. Then, when a lion stalked, our ancestors bunched up
back-to-back, rose onto their hind legs, waved their arms and
branches, hurled rocks, and screamed.
They made one last adjustment—an adaptation that would irrevocably
change the course of human history and eventually life on

earth. At some point our ancestors began to pick up and carry in their
arms what food they could collect and cart it to a clump of trees, a cliff,
a sandy spit beside a lake—a place where they could eat unmolested by
predators. Tunnell is convinced they never lingered at a kill or carted
food to where they slept; instead, they collected, carried, and ''dined
out."

And to carry with your hands and dine out, you have to walk erect.

"Man alone has become a biped," Darwin wrote in 1871. 19 He

conjectured that our ancestors rose from four feet onto two in order to
use their hands to hurl stones and branches at enemies and attack
their prey. Man the hunter; man the protector of women too.

Since Darwin's day generations of scientists have elaborated on this

view. In the 1960s it was popular to believe that our male forebears
stood to carry weapons to hunt big game like giraffes and zebras and
strode to wield weapons in order to shield their mates. In response to
this male-oriented hypothesis, female anthropologists of the 1970s
and 1980s argued that our ancestors probably walked bipedally to
collect and carry vegetables instead. 20 Woman the gatherer. Now
scholarly sentiments have changed again. Today many anthropologists
propose that the first hominids walked on two legs to collect and
scavenge meat. 21

Probably all of these theories are correct. Carrying a simple sharpened

stick, early men and women could pry roots and tubers from the soil.
Carrying stones, they could stun a warthog, a baby antelope, or a
baboon. Carrying branches, they could scare a jackal or a vulture from
its meal. Carrying a rudimentary pouch of leaves and cord, they could
tote meat and vegetables to a safe spot atop a cliff or in the trees.
Bipedalism also permits a metabolically efficient gait for moving long
distances slowly. The head is elevated, good for seeing food and
predators. Last, when early humans used their hands to carry, they
could use their mouths to holler at a predator, to warn a friend, to
signal plans.

What a transformation our ancestors must have undergone! At first

they probably rose onto their hind limbs, stood, swayed, and staggered
a few yards—the way chimpanzees do—before resuming

a quadrupedal stance. With time, however, their big toes rotated to lie
parallel to the others. They developed an arch from heel to toe and a
second arch across the ball of the foot that together acted as a
trampoline, stretching, then springing with each step to propel the
body forward. With strong new muscles in the buttocks, a pelvis that
had became broad and flat, knees aligned below their hips, and sturdy
ankle bones, they no longer waddled when they walked. Instead, they
almost effortlessly caught themselves as they fell forward—the human
stride.

With walking, collecting, and carrying, Lucy's grandmother's

grandmother's grandmother's ancestors had found their savannah
niche.

But bipedalism, I propose, would start a sexual revolution.

When our forebears lived in the trees and females walked on all four
limbs, the newborn had clung to mother's abdomen; as the infant
aged, it rode on mother's back as the female walked along unimpeded
by her child. But in the grass women walked erect. Now they had to
carry the infant in their arms instead.

How could a female carry sticks and stones, jump to catch a hare, dart
after a lizard, or hurl stones at lions to drive them from a kill— and
carry an infant too? How could a female sit in the dangerous grass to
dig for roots, collect vegetables, or dip for ants—and protect her child?
In the forest children played among the trees. Safety was everywhere.
On the plains children had to be carried and watched constantly, or
they would end up in a lion's belly.

Could you survive in the Australian desert carrying a heavy, noisy

basketball for several years? With the beginning of bipedalism
mothers needed protection and extra food, or they and their infants
would not survive. The time was ripe for the evolution of the husband
and the father. 22

Fatherhood

Pair-bonding is rare in nature. The Nile crocodile, American toad,

damsel fish, starfish-eating shrimp, wood roach, dung beetle, horned

*5°

ANATOMY OF LOVE

beetle, and some desert wood lice are all monogamous. Ninety percent
of all birds make pair-bonds. But only about 3 percent of all mammals
form a long-term relationship with a single mate. Among them are
some muskrats, some bats, Asiatic clawless otters, beavers, deer mice,
dwarf mongooses, the klipspringer, the reedbuck, the dik-dik and a
few other antelopes, gibbons and siamangs, some seals, a few South
American monkeys, and all of the wild dogs. Foxes, wolves, coyotes,
jackals, the maned wolf of South America, and the raccoon dog of
Japan all form pair-bonds and raise their young as "husband" and
"wife." 23

Monogamy is rare in mammals because it is not normally to a male's

genetic advantage to remain with one female when he can copulate
with several and pass more of his genes on to posterity. So males of
most species, like gorillas, try to accumulate a harem.

They do this in several ways. If a male can defend an asset, such as the
best place to eat or breed, several females will simply gather on his
territory; male impalas, for example, compete to win rich grazing
pastures where roaming herds of females linger. If resources are so
evenly distributed across the landscape that they are not defensible, a
male may try to attach himself to a group of females traveling together
and guard his entourage against intruding males—as lions do. And
when a male cannot sequester a harem one way or another, he may
establish a large territory and scramble to mate with several females
living within his range—rather like the milkman who visits house to
house. Male orangutans do this.

So it takes very special circumstances before a male will travel with a

single mate and help her defend her young.

From a feminine perspective, pair-bonding is not normally adaptive

either; a male can be much more trouble than he is worth. Females of
many species prefer to live with female relatives and copulate with
visitors; female elephants do this. And if a female needs a male for
protection, why not travel in a mixed group and copulate with several
males—the common tactic of female chimps? A host of ecological and
biological conditions must be present in the right proportions before
perquisites exceed expenses, making monogamy the best—or only—
alternative for both males and females of a species.

A proper mixture of these conditions occurs in the lives of

monogamous red foxes and eastern robins, though. And studying the
sex lives of these creatures gave me my first important clue to the
evolution of monogamy and divorce in humankind. 24

Female red foxes bear exceedingly helpless, immature babies, a trait

known as altriciality. 25 Kits are born blind and deaf. Not only does
the vixen bear infantile young, but she often delivers at least five of
them. Moreover, unlike mice that have rich milk and can leave their
altricial newborns in a nest while they forage elsewhere and return, the
female fox has milk that is low in fat and protein, so she must feed her
kits constantly for several weeks. She cannot maroon her pups.

What an ecological conundrum. The female fox will starve to death if

she does not have a mate to bring her food while she attends to her
helpless kits. 26

Monogamy is suitable to the male fox, however. These animals live in

territories where the resources are spread out. Under normal
conditions a male is not able to acquire a piece of property so rich in
food and breeding sites that two females are willing to reside on his
land and share one mate. Polygyny is rarely an alternative. But a male
can travel with a female and guard her from other males during her
peak of estrus (assuring paternity for the litter), then help her raise
their altricial young in a small home range. 27

Monogamy is thus the best alternative for both sexes, and red foxes
form pair-bonds to raise their young. But here's the clue: foxes do not
bond for life.

In February the vixen begins her mating dance. Typically several

suitors dog her heels. At the peak of estrus one becomes her mate.
They kiss and lick each other's faces, walk side by side, mark their
territory, and build several dens as winter wanes. Then, after giving
birth in spring, the vixen nurses her pups for almost three weeks while
her "husband" returns nightly to feed her a mouse, a fish, or some
other delicacy. Through the vibrant summer days and nights, both
parents guard the den, train the kits, and hunt for the voracious
family. But as summer dies, father returns to the den less and less. In

ANATOMY OF LOVE

August mother's maternal temper changes too; she drives her kits
from the lair and departs herself.

Among foxes a pair-bond lasts only through the breeding season. 28

Monogamy for the length of the breeding season is also common

among birds. Most birds form a pair-bond for the same reasons foxes
do. Because territories generally vary little in their quality of food and
breeding sites, a male eastern robin, for example, can rarely acquire a
particularly elegant homestead and attract several females to his real
estate. But he can defend a small territory and help a single mate.
Equally important, female eastern robins deliver several altricial
young—eggs that need incubating, chicks that need feeding and
protecting. Someone must remain with these infants constantly. And
since baby eastern robins do not suckle from a teat, males are just as
qualified at parenting.

As a result of these and other circumstances, eastern robins and some

90 percent of over nine thousand other avian species form pair-bonds
to raise their broods. 29

But here's the clue again: like red foxes, eastern robins do not mate for
life. They pair up in the spring and raise one or more broods through
the torpid summer months. But when the last of the fledglings fly in
August, mates split up to join a flock. Ornithologist Eugene Morton
estimates that in at least 50 percent of all monogamous avian species,
males and females pair only through a breeding season —just long
enough to raise their young through infancy. 30 The next year a couple
may return to the same spot and pair again; more often one dies or
disappears, and individuals change mates.

A Theory on the Nature of Monogamy and Desertion

Our first hominid ancestors had several things in common with red
foxes and eastern robins. In the cradle of humanity our forebears
survived by walking, collecting, scavenging, and moving on; nuts,
berries, fruit, and meat were spread across the grass. A male nomad
could not collect or defend enough resources to attract a harem. Nor

Out of Eden

153

could he monopolize the best place to breed because our ancestors had
coitus when they rested, then moved along; there was no best place to
breed. And even if a male could attract a group of females, how could
he protect them? When lions were not stalking his herd of "wives,"
bachelors would have lurked behind to steal his "brides/' Under
normal circumstances polygyny could not work. 31

But a male could walk beside a single female, try to guard her during
estrus from other males, and help her raise her young— monogamy.

The female's plight was even more compelling. It is unlikely that our
first female ancestors bore highly infantile, altricial babies the way
women do today (see chapter 12) or that they delivered litters. None of
the apes bear litters, babies that would tumble from the branches. But,
as mentioned earlier, when our ancestors rose onto two legs from four,
females became burdened by their young.

So as pair-bonding became the only alternative for females—and a

viable option for males—monogamy evolved.

But why did these early pair-bonds need to be permanent? Perhaps

like foxes and robins, our ancestors only needed to form pair-bonds
long enough to rear their young through infancy.

What made me think of this was a remarkable correlation between the

length of human infancy in traditional societies, about four years, and
the length of many marriages, about four years. Among the traditional
!Kung, mothers hold their infants near their skin, breast-feed regularly
through the day and night, nurse on demand, and offer their breasts as
pacifiers. As a result of this constant body contact and nipple
stimulation, as well as high levels of exercise and a low-fat diet,
ovulation is suppressed and the ability to become pregnant is
postponed for about three years. 32 Hence !Kung births are about four
years apart. Four years is the usual period between successive births
among continually breast-feeding Australian aborigines 33 and the
Gainj of New Guinea. 34 Infants are generally also weaned around the
fourth year among the Yanomamo of Amazonia, 35 the Netsilik
Eskimos, 36 the Lepcha of Sikkim, 37 and the Dani of New Guinea. 38

Although birth spacing varies among populations of hunter-gath-

ANATOMY OF LOVE

erers, and maternal age and number of children previously born to a

woman affect birth intervals, these data have led anthropologist Jane
Lancaster 39 and others to conclude that a four-year pattern of birth
spacing—caused by frequent exercise and the habit of continual
nursing through the day and night—was the regular pattern of birth
spacing during our long evolutionary past. 40
Thus the modern worldwide divorce peak—about four years—
conforms to the traditional period between human successive births—
four years.

So here is my theory. Like pair-bonding in foxes, robins, and many

other species that mate only through a breeding season, human
pairbonds originally evolved to last only long enough to raise a single
dependent child through infancy, the first four years, unless a second
infant was conceived.

There certainly must have been variations on this theme. Some

couples did not conceive for months or years after mating. Often a
baby must have died in infancy, triggering a return to cycling,
extending the relationship. Some couples probably remained together
regardless of infertility because they liked one another or because no
other mates were available. A host of factors must have affected the
length of primitive pair-bonds. But across the seasons, as decades
turned into centuries, those first hominid forebears who remained
together until their child was weaned survived disproportionately,
selecting for serial monogamy.

The seven-year itch, recast as a four-year human reproductive cycle,

may be a biological phenomenon.

Special Friendships

How serial monogamy evolved can only be surmised. Our earliest

ancestors probably lived in communities much like modern chimps. 41
Everyone copulated with just about everybody else, except with
mother and close siblings. Then gradually serial monogamy emerged.
The life-styles of olive baboons provide a fascinating model, however,
for how pair-bonding, the nuclear family, and divorce could have
evolved in these primal hordes. 42

Olive baboons travel in troops of about sixty animals through the

grasslands of East Africa. Each troop is composed of several female-
centered families, each headed by a matriarch surrounded by her
children and often her sisters and their young. Sons leave home at
puberty to join nearby groups. Like human families in many small
towns, one baboon "matriline" dominates local social life; another
family holds second rank, and so forth. And everyone knows who is
who.

A male baboon takes part in this web of social life by way of his
''special friendships" with specific females. First of all, these
friendships gain him entrance to the troop. Ray, for example, was a
healthy, handsome male who appeared at the periphery of one baboon
troop, the "Pumphouse Gang," soon after anthropologist Shirley Strum
began to hunker at the edge herself. Ray remained on the fringe of
group activities for several months, a loner. But gradually he made
friends with Naomi, a low-ranking female. Every day Ray came closer
to Naomi, until finally they sat side by side to eat and slept near each
other every night. Through Naomi, Ray made friends with other
females and eventually he became welcome in the troop.

These special friendships have other payoffs. At the height of her

monthly estrus, a female baboon forms a consort with a single partner
—often with a "special friend." Other males follow the pair, harass
them, and try to distract the male and steal the "bride." But if consort
partners are also special friends, the female tends to stick close to her
"lover," making it difficult for other males to interrupt the pair. If her
special friend catches a baby gazelle hidden in the grass, she is the first
to get a bite. His vigilance also provides a "buffer zone"—space where
she can relax, play with her offspring, and eat undisturbed.

A male in a special friendship gets payoffs too. Often this companion

becomes the social father of a female's young. He carries, grooms,
cuddles, and protects them. But he uses these infants too. If another
male threatens him, a male grabs the infant and holds it to his chest.
This instantly stops attack. Among baboons, special friends are
teammates that exchange favors, tit for tat.

Our ancestors probably made special friendships long before they

descended from the trees; As you recall, chimpanzees sometimes go
on safari with a consort. But when bipedalism obliged females to carry
young through the dangerous grass, thus requiring them to gain male
protection, these friendships could well have turned into deeper,
longer-term relationships—the primitive beginnings of human
marriage.

How our ancestral hominid forebears met a "spouse" is relatively easy

to explain. Parties of four or five females, their special friends, and
their children, a group large enough to protect itself yet small enough
to move quickly, undoubtedly traveled together. 43 Most likely the
territories of these bands overlapped. This way a meal missed by one
group of these first "people" was collected by the next that wandered
by.

In many primate species either males or females leave their natal

group at puberty, so it seems probable that when groups met,
adolescents occasionally switched residence. On the scorching plains
of Africa four million years ago, individuals probably grew up within a
large, loosely connected network of several different bands. From
among these individuals the young made special friends and then
developed pair-bonds—primitive hominid marriages.

Females were probably attracted to males who were friendly, attentive,

and willing to share their food, while males may have been drawn to
sexy females from high-status families. During a female's estrus, her
mate undoubtedly tried to guard her from the advances of other males,
perhaps not always effectively—males and females probably sneaked
into the bushes with other lovers when they could. But together a
mated pair roamed the grass. Together they collected and shared their
food. Together they protected and raised their child. Then one
morning either he or she left the band to travel with a new special
friend in a different group.

Caveats

I am not suggesting that our first forebears abandoned each other

casually. "Divorce" must have caused chaos, just as it does today.
Around the world people argue before they separate. Some commit
homicide or suicide. Children get confused, frightened, and dis-

placed. Relatives battle. Sometimes whole communities get involved.

Even among other primates, rearrangements in the social order often
lead to vicious fights.

Nor am I suggesting that primitive children were independent by age

four, either nutritionally or emotionally. But children in modern
hunting-gathering communities begin to join multi-age play groups at
about this age. Older siblings, relatives, friends, and just about
everyone else in the community take a greater role in caring for the
child as well. In other species these older siblings are called helpers at
the nest, whereas the mother's adult relatives and friends who help
with child care duties are known as "alloparents." Undoubtedly these
extra mothers, seen in a host of other species and all human cultures,
existed in prehistoric bands.

So once the mother no longer needed to carry her infant continually at

her side or nurse her baby day and night, her urgent dependency on a
protector-provider was reduced. Her incipient "husband" was less
dependent on her too. To safeguard his genetic future, he had been
obliged to protect his offspring until others could begin to help him
with the task. As the child grew out of infancy, however, he could again
respond to his biological imperative to sire further young. Ancient
lovers probably did not need to remain pair-bonded past the infancy of
a newborn, unless a second dependent baby was born.

Finally, I am not suggesting that all males and females in our early
prehistory abandoned each other as soon as their offspring began to
toddle out of infancy. In fact, modern divorce data show several
striking circumstances under which lifelong monogamy regularly
occurs—circumstances that undoubtedly led some of our forebears to
practice lifelong pair-bonding as well.

One circumstance associated with stable pair-bonds in people is

increasing chronological age. As you recall, around the world divorce
continues to decline dramatically after age thirty. Perhaps four million
years ago aging couples remained together in order to support each
other and to grandparent the growing young—selecting for this
modern human tendency.

Second, lifelong monogamy appears to be common today among

couples in the United Nations sample who have three or more

dependents—a pattern that is common in traditional societies. 44
Hence the more children you bear with a mate, the more likely you
probably are to stay together. This tendency may also stem from the
early days of humanity when parents with several offspring could not
desert a large family. Why should they? If parents were compatible—
and the mateship was conducive to raising several young—it was
genetically advantageous to both partners to mate for life.

Third, lifelong monogamy occurs for an ecological reason. You may

remember that divorce is less common in societies where men and
women are economically dependent on one another—most notably in
societies that use the plow for agriculture. Divorce is also low in
herding cultures and other societies where men do the majority of the
heavy labor and control important resources that women depend on to
survive. So if either gender was totally dependent on the resources of
the other in these early days of humanity, lifelong monogamy was
probably the norm.

I doubt this was the general case, however. Before farm life, before the
bow and arrow, before "people" made stone tools, our first ancestors
traveled in small nomadic groups of four or five mated pairs, their
offspring, and sundry single relatives and friends. Meat was a shared
luxury. Women were efficient gatherers. And as you will see in coming
chapters, the sexes were probably relatively economically autonomous.
Thus when partners became caught in a quarrelsome "marriage,"
either she or he picked up a few belongings and walked out; serial
monogamy was probably the norm.

So the monogamous life-styles of some birds and mammals, the

conduct of nonhuman primates, the daily lives of people in hunter-
gatherer societies like the traditional !Kung, and modern patterns of
marriage and divorce around the world all lead me to propose that
Lucy and her friends who walked through the muck below Mount
Sadiman some 3.5 million years ago had already adopted our basic
human mixed reproductive strategy.

This reproductive strategy had several parts. Young and childless

couples tended to form pair-bonds, desert each other, and bond

again. Couples with one or two children tended to remain together at

least long enough to raise their young through infancy; then they
"divorced"; then they picked new mates. Couples with three or more
children tended to bond for life. Aging couples tended to stay together.
And some males and females were adulterous along the way. Not
everyone followed this reproductive script; many still do not. But
because these patterns appear across the continents, they probably
evolved with genesis. They were probably adaptive too.

Nature Red in Tooth and Claw

When asked why all of her marriages failed, Margaret Mead replied, "I
have been married three times, and not one of them was a failure."
Mead was a rugged individual. But most Americans idealize lifelong
marriage; they equate divorce with failure, as many peoples do. From
a Darwinian perspective, however, there were advantages to serial
monogamy millennia ago.

Foremost, variety. If offspring varied in their talents and abilities, a

few would survive nature's unremitting drive to kill off poor strains.
Equally important, an ancestral male could pick a younger female
more capable of bearing healthy babies, 45 and a female could choose
a mate who provided better protection and support. 46 Today these
patterns still prevail. Men and women often have a child with one
mate and then more young by a second spouse. Men still remarry
younger women, and women still remarry men they think are more
caring, more supportive. Although all this recycling can lead to painful
social tangles, from a Darwinian perspective having children with
more than one partner often makes genetic sense.

But was it to a male's genetic advantage to abandon his biological

offspring to mate again and possibly acquire responsibilities for
stepchildren? Likewise, was it reproductively logical for an ancestral
female to subject her children to the whims of a "stepfather"?
Darwinian wisdom says it's not adaptive to desert one's own DNA to
nurture the protoplasm of another.

The answers to these questions, I think, are simple. The vicissitudes of

stepparenting have increased in modern times. Today

Western parents raise their children largely by themselves, and the

costs of education and entertainment are high. Children want bicycles,
stereos, computers, and college educations. Hence stepparent-ing can
have considerable economic disadvantages. But in our prehistoric
past, a child joined a multi-age play group soon after being weaned,
and older siblings, grandparents, and other community members
helped nurture all these youths. The isolated nuclear family did not
exist. Day care was free. And the costs of education and entertainment
were low. So stepparenting (after the infancy of the offspring) was
considerably less taxing in the past. In fact, stepparenting is
exceedingly common in traditional societies today, probably for these
reasons.

Ancestral children probably did not suffer severely from primitive

divorce either, as long as a stepfather appeared after the child had
entered a play group and joined the community at large. If a stepfather
appeared while the infant was still suckling, however, the
consequences for the infant may have been disastrous—due to another
harsh reality of nature best illustrated by lions.

When a new group of male lions overtake a pride and drive out its
former male leaders, they kill all new infants; from the Darwinian
perspective it is not to their advantage to raise offspring they have not
sired. The females of the pride quickly return into estrus after their
infants die, the new leaders mate, and thus these male lions raise cubs
with their own DNA. 47

This pattern of infanticide has its ghastly counterpart in modern

people. Today in the United States and Canada male stepparents kill
more infant stepchildren; after the stepchild is past age four, however,
the rate of infanticide reduces. 48 Here, then, was another reason an
ancestral female probably felt freer to switch partners after her child
had learned to walk and talk and join community affairs.

There may also have been cultural advantages to primitive "divorce"

and "remarriage." Edward Tylor, a founding father of anthropology,
observed in 1889, "Among tribes of low culture there is but one means
known of keeping up alliances, and that means is inter-marriage." 49
Today many gardening peoples of New Guinea, Africa, Amazonia, and
elsewhere marry off their children in order to make or keep friends.
But these first marriages tend not to last very

Out of Eden

101

long. 50 Apparently nobody gets very upset about these divorces

either. The marriage agreement has been honored. The alliance
between adults has been reinforced. The offspring have returned
undamaged. No grandchildren have been produced. And parents are
delighted to see their young again.

If these attitudes prevailed millennia ago, why not "marry" more than
once? With each new pair-bond social ties would be extended to a
band nearby. Customs, ideas, and information would be circulated too.

Undoubtedly our first forebears were not thinking of their DNA when
they deserted one another; people are still largely oblivious of the
genetic consequences of their sexual and reproductive lives. But those
ancestral males and females who abandoned one another some four
million years ago survived disproportionately—establishing primitive
patterns of marriage, divorce, and remarriage that were passed across
the eons to you and me.

In the movie The African Queen, Katharine Hepburn remarks to

Humphrey Bogart, "Nature, Mr. Alnutt, is something we were put on
this earth to rise above." Can we rise above our natural heritage?
Of course we can. Our contemporary marriage patterns are a
testament to the triumph of culture and personality over natural
human tendencies. Almost half of all American marriages last for life;
about half of all marital partners are faithful to their spouses. The
world is full of people who marry once and forgo adultery. Some men
have harems; some women have harems. Just about every
reproductive strategy known—except random promiscuity—is
practiced by someone somewhere. Some of us even choose celibacy or
childlessness—genetic death. So malleable an animal is man.

But we have whisperings within: during reproductive years we were

built to mate and mate again. What a world this sexual imperative
would forge.

Eros

Emergence ol the Sexual Emotions

We are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love. —

Sigmund Freud

To

o see her smile, to hear his voice, to watch her walk, to recall a
charming moment or witty remark—the slightest perception of one's
sweetheart sends a tidal wave of exhilaration through the brain. 'This
whirlwind, this delirium of Eros," wrote poet Robert Lowell, one of
millions, if not billions, of people who have experienced the engulfing
storm of infatuation. What a great equalizer this passion is—reducing
poets and presidents, academics and technicians, to the same
stuttering state of anticipation, hope, agony, and bliss.

Then, as infatuation wanes, a new sensation saturates the mind—

attachment. Perhaps this is the most elegant of human feelings, that
sense of contentment, of sharing, of oneness with another human
being. As you walk together holding hands, when you sit next to each
other reading in the evening, as you laugh simultaneously at a movie

or stroll through a park or on the beach, your souls are merged. All the
world's your paradise.

Alas, even attachment sometimes dulls, replaced by leaden

indifference or a cloying restlessness that slowly eats one's love and
leads to adultery, separation, or divorce. Then, after a relationship has
finally ended, and both partners are free of the emotions that tied
them up like puppets, some people feel that old sense of hope and
intense excitement as they fall in love again.

The human craving for romance, our drive to make a sexual

attachment, our restlessness during long relationships, our perennial
optimism about our new sweetheart—these passions drag us like a kite
upon the wind as we soar and plunge unpredictably from one feeling
to another. These emotions must come from our ancestry. So I shall
propose that they evolved with genesis, to drive our ancestors in and
out of relationships some four million years ago.

Love Is Primitive

Indeed, there is some evidence that infatuation and attachment are

very old emotions. As you recall, psychiatrist Michael Liebowitz
theorizes that the euphoria and energy of attraction are caused by a
brain bath of naturally occurring amphetamines that pool in the
emotional centers of the brain. This is why infatuated lovers can stay
awake all night talking, why they become so optimistic, so gregarious,
so full of life.

With time, however, the brain can no longer tolerate this continually
revved-up state. The nerve endings become either immune or
exhausted, and exhilaration wanes. 1 Some people sustain that smitten
feeling for only weeks or months. Those who have a barrier to the
relationship, like a marriage to a third party, can sometimes maintain
elation over their beloved for several years. But most partners who see
each other regularly feel the euphoria of attraction for some two to
three years. 2
Then, as the excitement and novelty subside, the brain kicks in new
chemicals, the endorphins, natural morphine-like substances that
calm the mind. And as the endorphins surge along the brain's
primeval pathways, Liebowitz maintains, they usher in the second

stage of love—attachment—with its sensations of security and peace.

Not only are these sexual emotions housed in the human brain,
suggesting the antiquity of attraction and attachment, but they occur
in people around the world. Nisa, the !Kung woman of the Kalahari
Desert that I have spoken of, succinctly described this two-phase
progression of romance, saying, "When two people are first together,
their hearts are on fire and their passion is very great. After a while,
the fire cools and that's how it stays. They continue to love each other,
but it's in a different way—warm and dependable." 3

Few others have so accurately observed these stages of romantic love.

But the vast majority of people acknowledge that romantic passion
exists. In fact, a new study of 168 societies found that 87 percent of
these vastly different cultures displayed direct evidence that people
knew this madness. 4

So infatuation and attachment have physiological components, and

these emotions are common to humankind. Moreover, Liebowitz has
proposed that these two distinctly different chemical systems in the
brain evolved in the human animal for a simple reason: "For primitive
man two aspects of relating to the opposite sex were important for
survival as a species. The first was to have males and females become
attracted to each other for long enough to have sex and reproduce. The
second was for the males to become strongly attached to the females
so that they stayed around while the females were raising their young
and helped to gather food, find shelter, fight off marauders and teach
the kids certain skills." 5

I'll go one step further: perhaps our drive to leave a mate also has a
physiological component that evolved some four million years ago
when our first hominid ancestors were beginning to pair up and then
part from each other as they raised successive young.
My thinking on this was stimulated by the work of an ethologist,
Norbert Bischof. In trying to explain why birds abandon their nests at
the end of the breeding season to join a flock and why creatures leave
the safety of their natal home after infancy, Bischof suggests that an
animal gets an "excess of security," to which it responds by

withdrawing from the object of attachment. 6 This retreat he calls the

surfeit response. 7 I suspect the same phenomenon might occur in
humankind. At some point in long relationships the brain's receptor
sites for the endorphins probably become desensitized or overloaded
and attachment wanes—setting up the body and the brain for
separation or divorce.

Planned obsolescence at nerve endings to stimulate serial monogamy

in bygone days? Perhaps.

Westerners adore love. We symbolize it, study it, worship it, idealize it,
applaud it, fear it, envy it, live for it, and die for it. Love is many things
to many people. But if love is common to all people everywhere and
associated with tiny molecules that reside at nerve endings in the
emotional centers of the brain, then love is also primitive.

I suspect these chemical systems for infatuation and attachment (and

perhaps detachment) had evolved by the time that Lucy and her
comrades were walking through the grasslands of East Africa some 3.5
million years ago. Those who felt the passion of infatuation formed
more secure partnerships with special friends. Those who sustained
the pull of attachment long enough to raise a child through infancy
nurtured their own DNA. Those males who crept away occasionally
with other lovers spread more of their genes, whereas those females
who philandered reaped additional resources for their growing young.
And those who left one partner for another had more varied babies.
The children of these passionate individuals survived
disproportionately, passing the brain chemistry for infatuation,
attachment, and restlessness during long relationships along to you
and me.

What consequences this brain chemistry would produce. The

"husband," the "father," the "wife," and the "nuclear family," our
myriad conventions of courtship, our human celebrations of marriage,
our divorce procedures, humankind's many punishments for adultery,
cultural mores for sexual comportment, patterns of family violence
stemming from desertion—countless customs and institutions would
burgeon from our ancestors' simple drive to make and break pair-
bonds millennia ago.

Most crippling of these legacies, however, are all of the emotional

upheavals this romantic wiring still causes. Love sickness. We seem
emotionally unfinished. Attached lovers, for example, tend to suffer
during a period of separation such as a business trip or school
vacation. Liebowitz thinks that, while apart, neither partner is getting
his or her daily dose of natural narcotic drugs. Levels of the
endorphins plunge. Then, as withdrawal sets in, lovers deeply miss,
even crave, each other.

This romantic wiring is probably also partly responsible for the

psychological and physical abuse that some men and women are
willing to endure. Some rebuffed lovers make ridiculous compromises
or accept hideous battering for fear of losing "him" or "her." Liebowitz
proposes that these "attachment junkies" are suffering from low levels
of these natural narcotic drugs, so they cling to a partner rather than
risking a drop in these opiates. Like heroin addicts, they are
chemically wedded to their partners. 8 What is equally compelling,
some battered partners have learned to associate the pain inflicted on
them with pleasure. 9 So as they receive abuse, levels of endorphins
may actually rise—driving them to return for more pain and its
corresponding high.

Psychiatrists also think that pining has a physiological component

connected to the brain's attachment system. People become listless
when they grieve for a deceased mate. Some hardly work or eat or
sleep. As the psychiatrist John Bowlby put it, "Loss of a loved person is
one of the most intensely painful experiences any human being can
suffer." 10 The loneliness some people feel when unattached must also
be caused, in part, by molecules in the mind.
Homosexual Love

So strong are these feelings of attachment, so basic to human nature,

that they occur in all of us—whether our "love object" is a member of
the opposite sex or of the same gender.

Scientists know very little about the causes of homosexuality, either

male-male or female-female love. Some researchers report that male
homosexuals more regularly come from homes where the father was
absent, or cold and detached, while the mother had an intimate,

smothering, primary relationship with her son. 11 Others maintain

that the family life of homosexuals and heterosexuals show no basic
differences. 12

Currently some scientists think that homosexuality is associated, in

part, with changes in the fetal brain instead. A few weeks after
conception fetal hormones begin to sculpt the male and female
genitals. And it is now thought that these hormones may also map the
male and female fetal brain. Any tangle in this hormonal bath,
however, changes one's sexual orientation in later life. 13

An enormous amount has been written on homosexuality, but as yet

no consensus has been reached. I can only add that homosexuality is
exceedingly common in nature. 14 Female cats housed separately from
males display all of the behavior patterns of homosexual arousal. Wild
female gulls sometimes mate as lesbian couples. Male gorillas band
together and exhibit homosexuality. Female pygmy chimpanzees have
regular homosexual interactions. Even male stickleback fish
occasionally act like females, as do mallard ducks and other birds. In
fact, homosexuality is so common in other species— and it occurs in
such a variety of circumstances—that human homosexuality is striking
not in its prevalence but in its rarity.

I suspect that both hormones and environment have important effects

on sexual preferences in humankind and other animals. But there is
only one point that is important to this book: homosexual men and
women fall in love, many form pair-bonds with mates, many break up,
and many bond again. Homosexual men and women experience all of
the same sensations of romantic love that heterosexual people report,
and they struggle with all of the same problems of this romantic
wiring. 15 These emotions clearly evolved long ago.

Jealousy

'The green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on." So
colorfully did Shakespeare describe jealousy—this intense human
affliction, this combination of possessiveness and suspicion. Jealousy
can arise at any time in a relationship. When persons are head over
heels in love during the attraction phase, when they are snugly
attached, while they are themselves philandering, even after they

have departed or been abandoned, the green-eyed monster can come

calling.

Psychological tests of American men and women show that neither

gender is routinely more jealous than the other—although the sexes
handle their attacks differently. Women generally are more willing to
pretend indifference in order to patch up a sullied partnership. Men,
on the other hand, more often leave a mate when they feel jealous;
they are apparently more intent on repairing their self-esteem and
saving face. 16 People who feel inadequate, insecure, or overly
dependent on their partners tend to be more jealous.

Male jealousy is a leading cause of spousal homicide in the United

States today. 17 And it is not unique to Westerners; in other cultures it
is as prevalent as the common cold. Even where adultery is condoned,
people suffer from jealousy when they hear about the dalliances of a
beloved. 18 An aboriginal man of Arnhem Land, Australia, summed it
up this way: "We Yolngu are a jealous people and always have been
since the days we lived in the bush in clans. We are jealous of our wife
or husband, for fear she or he is looking at another. If a husband has
several wives he is all the more jealous, and the wives are jealous of
each other. . . . Make no mistake, the big J is part of our nature/' 19

Whether other creatures feel jealous we will never know. But male and
female animals of many species behave very proprietary toward their
mates. Male gibbons, for example, drive other males from the family
territory, and females drive off other females. On one occasion
Passion, a female chimp at the Gombe Stream Reserve, Tanzania,
solicited a young male. He ignored her sexy gestures and began to
copulate with her daughter, Pom. Looking incensed, Passion rushed
up and slapped him hard. 20

Better examples come from birds. In a test of "cuckoldry-toler-ance,"

anthropologist David Barash interrupted the annual mating ritual of a
pair of mountain bluebirds which had just begun to build their nest.
While the cock was out foraging, Barash placed a stuffed male bluebird
about a meter from their home. The resident male returned and began
to squawk, hover, and snap his bill at the dummy. But he also attacked
his "wife," pulling some primary feathers from her wing. She vanished.
Two days later a new "wife" moved

in. 21 Wife beating by a jealous male bluebird?

This possessiveness has genetic logic. Jealous males of any species will
guard their partners more assiduously; thus jealous males are more
likely to sire young and pass on their genes. Females who drive off
other females, on the other hand, acquire more protection and
gratuities; because of their jealousy, they have acquired additional
resources—so their young are more likely to survive. In this way
possessive creatures bred disproportionately across the ages, selecting
for what we call jealousy—as well as modern male/female variations in
jealousy: American men tend to be more jealous if a mate is sexually
unfaithful, women are more jealous if a mate makes an emotional
commitment to another. 22

Jealousy had probably taken its human form by the time Lucy and her
girlfriends began to chase boys and form pair-bonds some 3.5 million
years ago. If a "husband" returned from scavenging and suspected
adultery, he might have become enraged and attacked his rival with
sticks and stones and shrieks and growls. And if Lucy caught her
husband with another female, she perhaps assaulted both of them with
words, then tried to ostracize the female from the group. Jealousy
helped curb philandering in females and desertion by males—selecting
for whatever it is in the male and female brain that contributes to the
power of a jealous rage.

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

What turbulence hath evolution wrought. The craving for a partner,

the emotional dependence on a mate, the tolerance of physical and
psychological abuse, pining, grieving, jealousy—such powerful
emotional reactions can be elicited when the body's attachment system
is threatened. Most compelling, however, is the emotional cyclone
some people feel when a lover leaves for good.

Sociologist Robert Weiss, a divorce, began to study marital separation

among members of the organization Parents without Partners. Then,
from discussions with 150 people who attended his "Seminars for the
Separated," he began to see a pattern to detachment. 23 First, he
confirmed that a feeling of attachment persists for the deserted
partner. Despite all of the bitter disappointments,

ANATOMY OF LOVE

failed promises, vicious battles, and rank humiliations, home

continues to be where one's mate is; anywhere else is exile. More
interesting, this tie dissolves in a pattern—a specific configuration that
could have evolved across the millennia.

If the relationship ends abruptly, shock is the first sensation the

rejected person feels. Dumbfounded, he or she responds only with
denial for several days, sometimes for as long as two weeks. But
eventually reality sets in. "She" or "he" is gone.

Then the "transition" phase begins. Time hangs heavy. Many of life's
daily rituals have evaporated, and one hardly knows what to do with
all the blanks. Anger, panic, regret, self-doubt, and a desperate,
consuming sadness overcome the rejected individual. Weiss says some
rejected people feel euphoria or a sense of freedom too. But this joy
cannot last. Moods swing relentlessly, so a decision made today
vanishes tomorrow. Some turn to alcohol or drugs or sports or friends;
others rely on psychiatrists, counselors, or self-help books; many just
lie in bed and cry.

And as they mourn, they begin to review the relationship—obsessively.

Hour upon hour they rewind old memories, playing out the cozy
evenings and touching moments, the arguments and silences, the
jokes and snide remarks, listening endlessly for clues to why "he" or
"she" departed. "What went wrong?" "How could I have acted
differently?" As the tormented person recalls the events leading to the
separation, he or she develops an "account" of who did what to whom.

Themes and key incidents dominate this mental narration as the

individual fixates on the worst humiliations. But with time he or she
builds a plot with a beginning, a middle, and an end. This account is a
little like a description of an auto accident; perceptions are garbled.
But the process is important. Once in place, the story can be
addressed, worked on, and, eventually, discarded.

Sometimes the transitional phase lasts a year. Any setback, such as an

unsuccessful reconciliation or a rejection by a new lover, can hurl the
sufferer back into shattered anguish. But as he or she develops a
coherent life-style, the "recovery" phase begins. Gradually the
abandoned individual acquires a new identity, some self-esteem, new
friends, fresh interests, and some resiliency. The past begins to loosen
its stranglehold. Now he or she can proceed with living.

But there are two provocative results of Weiss's study, data suggesting
that our emotions have physiological components and that the
chemistry of attachment and abandonment evolved long ago in a
specific evolutionary design. Weiss noticed that none of the 150
"separated" men and women who joined his seminars had been
married less than a year; few had separated within two years after
wedding. To account for this, he surmised "that it takes about two
years after marriage before individuals fully integrate the marriage
into their emotional and social life."

I suspect that brain chemistry also plays a role. As you recall, it

generally takes a couple of years before the infatuation high wears off
and the attachment drugs set in, tightly binding partners to each
other. Perhaps this is also why so few couples that divorced within two
years of marrying joined Weiss's seminars. Since they never reached
the attachment stage, they didn't need help with the process of
parting.

Even more interesting, Weiss noted that the entire process of

separation normally takes two to four years, "with the average being
closer to four than to two." The number four has come up again. Not
only do we tend to form pair-bonds for about four years, but it often
takes about four years to dissolve the relationship.

The human animal seems driven by a tide of feelings that ebb and flow
to an internal beat, a rhythm that emerged when our ancestors
descended from the fast-disappearing trees of Africa and developed a
tempo in their relationships that was in synchrony with their natural
breeding cycle, about four years.

"Fresh Features"

"The chains of marriage are heavy and it takes two to carry them—
sometimes three," Oscar Wilde once said. He put his finger on another
emotion that probably has a physiological component and evolved in
human evolution: our human craving for sexual variety. Psychologists,
psychiatrists, sex therapists, and family counselors regularly see
patients who are struggling with stale partnerships and many more
who turn to new individuals for sexual release. What motivates people
to philander?

There are countless reasons. Some adulterers apparently need a

ANATOMY OF LOVE

companion when they are on business in a foreign city. Some like to

sleep around with members of a different ethnic group, class, or
generation. Some want to solve a sex problem. Some are looking for
intimacy, excitement, or revenge. Chapter 4, on adultery, lists many
psychological reasons why men and women climb into bed with
auxiliary lovers. But it seems likely that there is also a biological
component to infidelity, one that evolved through time and countless
trysts.

Evidence for the physiology of adultery comes from the work of

psychologist Marvin Zuckerman and his colleagues, who point out that
people respond very differently to novelty. Many avoid it. But
sensation seekers come in four varieties. 24 Some crave outdoor sports
and activities that feature speed and danger. Others seek inner
experiences through drugs, travel, the arts, and avant-garde life-styles.
Swingers like reckless parties, sexual variety, gambling, and quantities
of alcohol. Last, some individuals cannot tolerate predictable people or
routine of any kind.

These men and women score higher on tests for susceptibility to

boredom and psychological tests show that they suffer less from
anxiety and lack of nurturance. So Zuckerman thinks that the brains of
these thrill seekers are more wired to seek sensation, experience,
theater and adventure—variety of any sort.

Monoamine oxidase, or MAO, may be the biological accomplice.

Adults with low levels of MAO, an enzyme in the brain, tend to be
gregarious, drink heavily, indulge in drugs, like fast cars, and seek out
the excitement of rock concerts, bars, and other places of public
entertainment. People with low MAO also pursue an active, varied sex
life. 25 They seem to be physiologically wired to create drama and
excitement. This may begin in infancy; newborn babies with low levels
of MAO are more excitable and crankier.

Human beings are not the only creatures that seem to vary in their
love of risk. Some cats, dogs, monkeys, wolves, pigs, cows, and even
fish seek more novelty than others do; some consistently approach
new things, while others flee. Shyness is an inborn trait. 25

Why would anyone in a relatively happy relationship risk family and

friends, career, health, and peace of mind to pursue a casual affair?
Americans disapprove of infidelity—yet they engage extra-
marital lovers regularly. So there must be something in the brain that
fuels this madness. Whatever its underlying brain physiology is, the
genetic component of philandering probably began to evolve soon
after our first forebears turned down the road toward humankind.

Are we alone in our drive to court and love and leave each other? Or is
the stallion that paws the ground, fills his nostrils with the scent of a
receptive female and mounts this mare feeling infatuation too? Does
the dog fox feel attachment as he nudges an appetizing dead mouse
toward his hungry vixen in their den? Do Nile crocodiles that raise
infants as a team feel fondness for one another? Are the bluebirds that
desert the nest in autumn glad to part? Have billions of animals over
millions of years felt the ecstasy of infatuation, the peace of
attachment, the tension of philandering, the agony of abandonment?

Several things suggest that a wide range of creatures are capable of

feeling the sensations of love. All birds and mammals have a
hypothalamus deep in the center of the brain. Sometimes called the
hub of the emotions, this little gland plays a major role in steering
sexual behavior. Because this nodule has evolved very little in the last
seventy million years and is so similar across species, it suggests
continuity between man and beast. 27

The limbic system in the brain, which governs feelings of lust, rage,
fear, and ecstasy, is rudimentary in reptiles but is well developed in
birds and mammals, also suggesting that other creatures are capable
of intense emotions. 28 Last, it is generally accepted that the basic
emotions of fear, joy, sadness, and surprise are linked with specific
facial expression. And since humans and other animals share several
of these facial expressions, such as the snarl, it is possible that they
share some of these emotions too. 29

Perhaps all of the world's birds and mammals are servants of a few
chemicals that surge through their various nervous systems, directing
the ebb and flow of attraction, attachment, and detachment to fit their
breeding cycles.

And if animals love, Lucy loved.

She probably flirted with the boys she met when bands convened

ANATOMY OF LOVE

at the beginning of the dry season and became infatuated with one
who gave her meat. She might have lain beside him in the bushes and
kissed and hugged, then stayed awake all night, euphoric. As she and
her special friend wandered together across the plains in search of
melons, berries, and fresh antelope, she must have felt exhilaration.
When they curled up to dream, she probably felt the cosmic warmth of
attachment. Maybe she became bored as they passed their days, and
felt a thrill when she sneaked into the woodlands to copulate with
another. Probably she mourned when she and her partner split up one
morning to join separate groups. Then she fell in love again.

I am not surprised we feel with such intensity. After all, reproduction

is the primary purpose of any organism. Nature would have done
shoddy work had she not produced powerful mechanisms to make us
breed and breed again.

What an incredible plot. The crippling passion of infatuation, the deep

closeness of attachment, the seductive craving to philander, the
torment of abandonment, the hope to mate anew—Lucy's children's
children's children's children would pass these kernels of the human
psyche through time and chance and circumstance along to you and
me. And from this evolutionary history would arise an eternal struggle
of the human spirit—the drive to marry, to philander, to divorce, and
to pair again.

No wonder love is cherished. No wonder so many people have suffered

from a broken heart. If love is a cyclic process of the human brain that
evolved to produce variety in our species, then romantic passion is
powerful—and fleeting.

Our restive, churning temperament would create more than the sexual
emotions. It also led to the evolution of our human sexual anatomy—
physical attributes designed to lure prospective mates into the siren's
web.
9

The Sirens Web

Evolution ol Human Sexual Anatomy

Why were we crucified into sex?

Why were we not left rounded off,

and finished in ourselves.

As we began,

As he certainly began,

so perfectly alone?

— D. H. Lawrence, "Tortoise Shout"

\L

ermilion noses, crimson chests, puffy buttocks, strips and spots and
dapples, tufts, crowns, manes, horns, and hairless patches, such are
nature's decorations; sexual beings are like ornamented Christmas
trees, bearing an arsenal of accoutrements to win their fortunes and
their futures through copulation and reproduction. We human beings
have a fantastic array ourselves. Among them are large penises, beards
and fleshy breasts, everted reddened lips, continual female sexual
receptivity, and other beguiling male and female traits that are like a
siren's web, sex lures that evolved over millennia of seductions.

How did we come to be decorated so?

Sexual Selection

Over a hundred years ago Darwin proposed a solution to many of the

riddles of human sexuality. He wanted to explain why stags have
antlers and lions manes, why male peacocks sport brilliant tails and
male elephant seals are twice a big as females. Because these traits
were cumbersome, of little value to daily living, even apparently
maladaptive, Darwin could not believe they had evolved by means of
natural selection, survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. So
in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), he
detailed a corollary to natural selection—sexual selection.

The theory: these peculiarities evolved by a slightly different, closely

related form of selection—reproductive selection, the mating game. 1

Darwin's argument was elegant. If a mane made a lion more

threatening to other males, or more attractive to females, those males
with longer manes bred more often and bore more young, and the
young passed along this otherwise unnecessary trait. Likewise, if large,
strong male elephant seals fought off smaller, weaker ones and then
lured a harem during the short, synchronized breeding season, large
males bred more often. So through these endless battles and courtship
rituals, the stag evolved its antlers, the peacock its brilliant tail, the
elephant seal its lumbering size and excessive weight.

Darwin was fully aware that sexual selection could not account for all
of the differences between the sexes. But the eternal struggle of who
will mate and breed with whom—the mating game—is the only
explanation for the evolution of some of nature's more bizarre sexual
accoutrements, including the human phallus.

Men have big penises, larger than those of gorillas, a primate with
three times a man's body bulk. Gorillas apparently have small phal-
luses because they do not compete with their genitals. These creatures
live with stable harems. Males are twice the size of females, and they
impress competitors with their large body size; large genitals are not
part of their display. As a result, a gorilla's erect penis is only two
inches long.

We do not know why men have conspicuous genitals, but a male

chimp solicits a female by opening his legs, displaying an erect penis
and flicking his phallus with a finger as he gazes at a potential partner.
A prominent, distinctive penis helps broadcast one's individuality and
sexual vigor, which may lure female friends. In many species of insects
and primates, males have exceptionally elaborate penises, and
scientists think these evolved specifically because females chose those
males with elaborate, sexually stimulating genitals. 2 So perhaps as
Lucy's ancestors became bipedal some four million years ago, males
began to parade their genitals in order to make special friends with
favored females—selecting for those with large organs.

Two factors work together to make a penis conspicuous, however—

thickness and length, and these separate assets may have evolved by
slightly different means of sexual selection.

Human penises are relatively thick, and this may have emerged in
human evolution simply because Lucy and her girlfriends liked thick
penises. A fat phallus distends the muscles of the outer third of the
vaginal canal and pulls on the hood of the clitoris, creating exciting
friction, making orgasm easier to achieve. Indeed, if early females
chose males with thick phalluses, as they must have done, then those
who had thick penises had more special friends throughout their lives
and more extra lovers too. These males produced more children. And
thick penises evolved. As Darwin wrote "... The power to charm the
female has sometimes been more important than the power to
conquer other males in battle." Indeed penis thickness may be a result
of this.

Sperm Wars

Long penises may have evolved for a different reason, though, another
form of sexual selection known as sperm competition. The theory of
sperm competition was first developed to explain the mating tactics of
insects. 3 Most female insects are highly promiscuous; they copulate
with several partners, then either eject the sperm or store it for days,
months, or even years. So males compete inside the female's
reproductive tract.

A male damselfly, for example, uses his penis to scoop out the sperm
of previous suitors before he himself ejaculates. Male insects
also try to dilute the sperm of competitors or push it out of place.
Some insert a "mating plug" in the female's genital opening after
copulation; whereas others guard the female until she has deposited
her eggs. 4 Perhaps the long human phallus is the result of sperm
competition too, designed to give the swimmers a head start. 5

Men's averaged-sized testicles are probably also the result of jousting

in the vaginal canal. This reasoning is based on data from
chimpanzees. Male chimps have large testicles for their body size, as
well as long penises, and it is thought that they sport these factories
because male chimps are promiscuous. In a chimpanzee horde, males
are quite tolerant of one another, even lining up to copulate. So as the
reasoning goes, in the past those chimp males with large testicles and
numerous speedy sperm deposited more copious quantities of highly
motile sperm in a female's reproductive tract. These chimps conceived
more young—selecting for large testicles in chimps. Gorillas, on the
other hand, have very small testicles, and, as is to be expected, they
copulate infrequently and with little competition from other males. 6

These facts led scientist Robert Smith to propose that men's medium-
sized testicles and copious ejaculate evolved for the same reason that
they arose in chimps: ancestral men with vigorous seed bags and more
sperm produced more conceptions, selecting for men's average-sized
testicles and their abundant energetic seed. Even nocturnal emissions
and male masturbation, Smith thinks, are the result of sperm
competition between males, a pleasurable way to replace old sperm
with new. 7

Male-male competition. Female choice. Scientists generally emphasize

these two aspects of sexual selection because in nature females should
be choosy about their lovers, whereas males should fight among
themselves for the privilege of breeding. 8

In fact, this reasoning shows impeccable genetic logic: for females of

many species, the costs of reproduction are high. Females conceive the
embryo, tote the fetus for days or months, and often raise the children
largely by themselves. And females are limited in the number of
offspring they can produce; it takes time to bear and raise each infant,
brood, or litter. So it is to a female's advantage to

pick her partners carefully; she hasn't many opportunities to

reproduce.

For males of most species the costs of reproduction are much lower.
Males just donate sperm. Even more important, males can conceive
offspring much more regularly than females—as long as they can fight
off other suitors, attract females, and withstand sexual exhaustion. So
it is to a male's reproductive advantage to copulate relatively
indiscriminately.

Because of these differences in "parental investment," it is generally

males of the species who compete among themselves for females and
regularly females who choose between males. But the alternative
forms of sexual selection, males who choose between females and
females who compete among themselves to breed, are also seen in
nature. People are no exception. Just go to any bar or club or party,
and watch women compete with one another while men choose
between them. As H. L. Mencken summed it up, "When women kiss it
always reminds one of prize fighters shaking hands."

In fact, several important female traits are probably the consequence

of female-female competition and males who chose between them in
yesteryear. Among the most conspicuous are permanently enlarged
female breasts.

Why Did Big Breasts Evolve?

In 1967 ethologist Desmond Morris proposed that when our ancestors

became bipedal, the sexual signals that initially ornamented the rump
evolved to decorate the chest and head instead. 9 Hence women
evolved everted reddened lips to mimic the lips of the vagina and
dangling fleshy breasts to mimic puffy buttocks. Ancestral males were
attracted to women with these signs of sexual readiness, so women
with bulging breasts bore more young—spreading this trait across the
centuries.
Several scientists have added alternative hypotheses. Perhaps breasts
evolved to signal "ovulatory potential." Because women of prime
reproductive age have more voluptuous breasts than do suba-dults or
postmenopausal women, ancestral men may have seen these swellings
as signs of likely fertility. 10 As another hypothesis goes, among
primates breasts swell only while a female nurses, so maybe

these flags evolved to advertise a woman's ability to reproduce and

feed her young 11 —the "good-mother" signal—or as a deceptive sign to
trick males into thinking a female was a good reproductive bet. 12 A
last interesting theory holds that breasts were primarily storehouses of
fat, crucial reserves that could be drawn on during pregnancy and
lactation if food was scarce. 13

All these theories make genetic sense.

But what a bad design. These protuberances around the mammary

glands seem poorly placed. They bobble painfully when a woman runs.
They flop forward to block vision when she leans over to collect food.
And they can suffocate a suckling child. Moreover, breasts (of any size)
are sensitive to touch. Why? A woman's nipples harden at the slightest
touch. And for many, fondling the breasts stimulates sexual desire.

So I do not wish to overlook Morris's original theory for the sexual

purpose of the female breast: for whatever genetically adaptive
reasons (and there were probably several), ancestral males liked
females with these sensitive, pillowy appendages and bred more often
with sexually responsive, big-busted women—selecting for this decor.

As females picked their lovers and men chose between women, as all
our early ancestors jockeyed for prized spouses and lovers, other
fundamental aspects of human sexuality probably emerged.

Men have beards; women have smooth complexions; men develop

deep voices at puberty, while women retain mellifluous tones. How
come? Of facial hair Darwin wrote, "Our male ape-like progenitors
acquired their beards as an ornament to charm or excite the opposite
sex. .. ," 14 Perhaps beards signaled strength and maturity to women.
Darwin also referred to the high female voice as a musical instrument,
concluding, "We may infer that they first acquired musical powers in
order to attract the opposite sex." 15 Maybe to men the sweet voice was
childlike, unthreatening.

For whatever reasons, in Lucy's day some males and females bore
more young than others did, selecting for the peculiar body ornaments
of these individuals—thick long penises, permanently enlarged
breasts, men's beards, and women's dulcet tones.

The Siren's Web

i»i

We are indeed naked apes, and the loss of body hair could have been,
at least in part, another result of sexual selection. Actually we did not
lose our body hair; we have the same number of hair follicles as do the
apes, but the hair itself is less developed.

Explanations of this trait, our puny pelage, have cost a lot of ink and
paper. The classic explanation is that it evolved as part of a revision in
the body's heating and cooling system. The sweaty jogger. In order for
our hunting-scavenging ancestors to lope long distances in search of
game, insulating hair was replaced by body fat and sweat glands that
poured a cooling liquid film across an exposed chest and limbs when
they got too hot. Some argue instead that our ancestors lost their body
hair to reduce the frequency of parasitic infestations. Still others think
that our hairlessness may have evolved in conjunction with our human
trait of being born exceedingly immature (see chapter 12). 16

But Morris has proposed that these human hair patterns served as sex
attractants too. With a diminutive pelage, the tender areas of the chest
and around the groin became more visible, more exposed, more
sensitive to touch. Not coincidentally, women evolved less hair around
their lips and breasts—places where stimulation can easily lead to
intercourse. And where our ancestors retained hair seems just as much
a stimulant to sex as where they lost it. Hair in the underarms and
crotch holds the aromas of sweat and sex—odors that are sexually
exciting to many people.

Like beards, deep voices, smooth chins, and high voices, some of these
modern hair patterns also appear at puberty—the beginning of the sex
season. So the simplest explanation is that all these traits evolved for
several reasons—among them, to dazzle mates and paramours when
our hominid ancestors first emerged from the shrinking forests of
Africa to mate and raise their young as "husband" and "wife."

Of all our sexual habits, the most striking and pleasurable to both men
and women are three bizarre traits of human females: their ability to
copulate face-to-face, their intense but fickle pattern of orgasm, and
their remarkable ability to copulate around the clock.

About these feminine lures men have rhapsodized for centuries, if not
millennia.

Did Lucy copulate face-to-face? I think she did. All modern women
have a downward-tilted vagina rather than the backward-oriented
vulva of all other primates. Because of this tipped vulva, face-to-face
copulation is comfortable. In fact, in this position the man's pelvic
bone rubs against the clitoris, making intercourse extremely
stimulating.

Not surprisingly, face-to-face coitus in the missionary position is the

preferred copulatory posture in most cultures, although variations
abound. 17 The Kuikuru of Amazonia sleep in single-person
hammocks strung around a family hearth, so lovers have little privacy.
Moreover, one false move and both partners are pitched into the night
fire. Because of these inconveniences, spouses and paramours make
love in the forest, where the ground is uneven and often wet. Here a
woman cannot lie on her back to copulate. Instead, she squats, leans
back, and holds her buttocks and back above the ground with flexed
arms and legs. Still, she makes love while looking at her partner.
People have invented dozens of other positions for intercourse. But
face-to-face copulation is depicted around the world; it is probably a
badge of the human animal.
The downward-tilting human vaginal canal could have evolved via
sexual selection. 18 If Lucy had a tipped vagina and encouraged face-
to-face coitus, her partners could see her face, whisper, gaze, and pick
up nuances of her expressions. Face-to-face copulation fostered
intimacy, communication, and understanding. So, like those ancestral
females with pendulous sensitive breasts, those with tipped vaginas
perhaps forged stronger bonds with their special friends and bore
disproportionately more young—passing this trait to us.

Multiple Orgasm

Another dazzling female trait is "multiple orgasm." Unlike her mate's,

a female's genitals do not expel all the fluid during orgasm, and—if she
knows how—she can climax again and again. Why do women have the
capacity for multiple orgasm while men do not? That's a good
question. In males, orgasm is critical to insemina-

tion; the pulsations push sperm into the vagina. But a woman's egg
pops naturally from her ovary once a month regardless of her sexual
response. In fact, anthropologist Donald Symons thinks that, because
female orgasm is of no direct use to conception, female orgasm is an
unnecessary anatomical and physiological phenomenon which was
retained through evolution in women only because it was of such
importance to men. He compares female orgasm and the clitoris to the
nipples on the breasts of men—useless appendages decorating the
body of one sex only because they are of such vital use to the other.
Hence Symons concludes that female orgasm is not an adaptation at
all. 19

Wait a minute. The clitoris is not a relatively inert patch of tissue like
the male nipple but a remarkably sensitive clump of nerves that
produce orgasm—a violent, pounding physical sensation and
tumultuous emotional experience. Moreover orgasm signals
something: satisfaction. Men like women to climax because it
reassures them that their partner is gratified and perhaps less inclined
to seek sex elsewhere. Female orgasm boosts the male ego. 20 Why
else would women fake orgasms?
And for a woman orgasm is a journey, an altered state of
consciousness, another reality that escalates to chaos, then elicits
feelings of calm, tenderness, and attachment—which tend to cement a
relationship with a partner. 21 Orgasm also satiates a woman, and that
motivates her to remain lying down; hence sperm is less likely to flow
out of the vaginal canal. Last, female orgasm most likely stimulates a
woman to seek more coitus, which inevitably facilitates conception
too.

I cannot agree with Symons; I think female orgasm evolved for

genuine purposes: to encourage females to seek sex, to make an
intimate connection with a reproductive mate or extra lover, to signal
enjoyment to this partner, and to aid fertilization. 22

And it probably evolved long before our ancestors descended from the
trees. All female primates and higher mammals have a clitoris. A
chimp's clitoris is larger than that of women, both relatively and
absolutely, and once a female becomes sexually excited, she begins to
copulate at a fevered pitch—suggesting that female chimps climax
several times. Females of many species experience changes in blood

pressure, respiration, heart rate, muscular tension, hormonal levels,

and vocal tones that resemble the human female response during
orgasm. So orgasm probably occurs in many other creatures. 23

Multiple orgasm also would have been adaptive for ancestral arboreal
females, whose livelihood depended on forming good relations with
several males. So Lucy probably inherited the ability for multiple
orgasm from her ancestors living in the trees and passed it along to us.

Women do not climax all the time, however. And even this
characteristic may have been selected millennia ago. Women tend to
climax when they are relaxed, with men who are sexually attentive,
and with longtime, committed partners. Women achieve orgasm much
more regularly with husbands, for example, than with secret lovers.
And streetwalkers who copulate with strangers climax less frequently
than do call girls with better-paying, more-considerate customers.
Perhaps this orgasmic fickleness is a mechanism women
unconsciously evolved to distinguish a caring, patient Mr. Right from a
cavalier, restive Mr. Wrong. 24

Take your choice. Female orgasm may be no more than a func-tionless

accoutrement, the consequence of embryonic growth so crucial to
male sexuality that it was retained through evolution in women, or a
highly adaptive feature in a complex female strategy to win the mating
game.

Will She or Won't She?

Of all the sexual ploys women have acquired from the past, none is so
captivating to scientists—and so enjoyable to men and women—as the
female's remarkable ability to copulate when she wants to. As you
recall, to males or females of almost any other living species, sex is not
constantly available. Why? Because females of sexually reproducing
genera have a period of heat, or estrus, and when they are not in heat
they generally refuse to accept a male.

There are exceptions, of course. 25 But women fall at the far end of a
long continuum of behavior: they regularly can and do copulate
throughout their entire monthly menstrual cycle; they can engage in
intercourse throughout most of pregnancy; and they can and often

do resume coitus as soon as they have recovered from childbirth —

months or years before a child is weaned.

Critics say that continual female sexual readiness exists only in the
fears of old men and the hopes of young boys. This is not the point. If a
woman wants to, she can copulate anytime she pleases. American
married women copulate, on average, one to three times a week,
depending on their age. 26 In many cultures women reportedly make
love either every day or every night, except when rituals of war,
religion, or other local customs intercede. 27 Sex does not end with
menopause or aging either. 28 This is not to say that a woman always
has a high libido. But the human female has lost her period of heat.

Several theories have been offered for the loss of estrus periodicity. 29
The classic explanation holds that ancestral females lost estrus in
order to cement a pair-bond with a male. With the ability to copulate
at any time, a female could keep her special friend in perpetual
attendance. This is an interesting idea. But many birds and some
mammals are monogamous, and none except women display
continual sexual availability. There must be a richer explanation for
this remarkable human female trait.

Perhaps adultery selected for the loss of estrus. If clandestine

copulations provided Lucy and her female compatriots with extra
protection and support, then it would have been to their advantage to
copulate on the side whenever the opportunity arose. But in order to
philander, you have to seize the moment. If your special friend is away
scouting and scavenging and his brother appears to collect nuts with
you, you cannot wait until your period of heat returns; you must make
love then.

Continual sexual receptivity enabled females to pursue both of their

fundamental reproductive strategies: securing a pair-bond with a mate
and allowing for ancillary copulations with additional lovers too.

Ecological factors undoubtedly also contributed to the loss of estrus. It

would have been adaptive for our ancestors to bear young throughout
the year so that infants were not born all at once, burdening the band,
inviting the lions to a lovely lunch. Loss of estrus

would have facilitated year-round births. Maybe estrus was also excess
baggage, part of a hormonal system females had to shed in order to
incorporate other physiological adaptations. Most important, loss of
estrus may have been a meal ticket. When male chimps kill an animal
and everyone congregates to beg for pieces, estrous females get extra
portions. 30 Early women may have needed these gratuities as well.

So if Lucy had a slightly longer monthly period of sexual receptivity,

lasting, let's say, twenty days as opposed to ten, she would have
maintained a longer sexual relationship with her special friend and
clandestine lovers, garnering more protection, more of their scavenged
meat. She would have lived. Her young would have lived. And the
propensity for longer and longer periods of sexual receptivity evolved.
31 Likewise, those females who copulated throughout more of
pregnancy and sooner after delivering a child also received extra
gratuities and survived disproportionately, passing on to modern
women the trait of continual sexual availability.

Silent Ovulation

So magnificent is this bizarre trait, continual sexual availability, that it

must have been the culmination of several environmental and
reproductive forces. But did women lose estrus or acquire perpetual
estrus?

They lost estrus. Women exhibit almost no signs of midcycle

ovulation. Shortly before the egg pops from the ovary, the tacky mucus
on the cervix becomes slippery, smooth, and stretchable. Some women
feel cramping. A few bleed slightly at this time. Others have unusually
oily hair, their breasts become sensitive, or they have more energy
than usual. A woman's body temperature rises almost a full degree at
ovulation and remains normal or above until the next menstruation.
And as her body voltage goes up, she becomes more electrically
charged as well. 32 With these exceptions, ovulation is silent.

Women do not become sex crazed at midcycle either. 33 Not all

primates flash puffy, conspicuous genitals at estrus. But one and all
flaunt ovulation with alluring aromatic scents and persistent courting
gestures. Hence the word estrus, derived from the Greek for

"gadfly." On the contrary, most women do not even know when they
are fertile. In fact, a woman must copulate regularly in order to get
pregnant and take precautions if she does not want to bear a child. For
women ovulation is concealed.

What a dangerous inconvenience "silent ovulation" is. It had led to

millions, perhaps billions, of unwanted pregnancies. But it is easy to
speculate on the advantages of silent ovulation in Lucy's day.

If Lucy's partner did not know when she was fertile, he was obliged to
copulate with her regularly in order to bear a child. Silent ovulation
kept a special friend in constant close proximity, providing protection
and food the female prized. Paramours did not know whether Lucy
was fertile either. She could count on their attentions too. And because
primate males that consort with a female are often solicitous toward
her young, these ancillary lovers may have doted on her children.
Silent ovulation got the female more of what she needed—males.

Males got more sex. With the loss of estrus, a female mate was
continually available sexually. Lovers were consistently ready too.
With silent ovulation a "husband" did not have to fight off other
suitors either, because his "wife" and lovers never signaled fertility.
Silent ovulation probably also kept the peace. 34

Of all the payoffs of this magnificent female trait, however, the most
staggering was choice. Unchained from the ovulatory cycle of all other
animals—and a sex drive that peaked and waned—Lucy could finally
begin to choose her lovers more carefully.

Though female chimps definitely have favored sex partners and

sometimes deflect intercourse with those they dislike by moving
inappropriately at key moments or refusing to get into a mating pose,
female chimps cannot conceal their receptivity, feign tiredness, or
drive off suitors with nonchalance or insults. They are propelled by
chemistry to copulate. Freed from this monthly hormonal flood,
ancestral females gained more cortical control of their sexual desire.
They could copulate for myriad new reasons too—including power,
spite, lust, companionship, and love. "Will she or won't she?" came
into vogue.

From large penises and dangling breasts to face-to-face copulation

and continual sexual receptivity—all of the restless rivalry, the love

affairs, and the recycling of partners started to change our bodies. As
ancestral men and women paired and worked together, selection
would also build the male and female brain. Now the human psyche
would take flight.
10

Wky Cant a Man Be More Like a ^bman?

Development 01 the Human Sexual Brain

Man is compos 'd here of a two-fold part; The first of Nature, and the
next of Art.

— Robert Herrick, "Upon Man"

-LVXan is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman,

and has a more inventive genius. . .. Woman seems to differ from man
. . . chiefly in her greater tenderness and less selfishness." Darwin
wrote these words in 1871. Man the aggressor, woman the nurturer: he
believed these gender qualities were the "birthright" of humankind,
acquired from our distant past.

Darwin also thought men were naturally smarter. This superior male
intelligence, he proposed, arose because young men had to fight to win
mates. Because ancestral males had to defend their families, hunt for
their joint subsistence, attack enemies, and make weapons, males
needed higher mental faculties, "namely, observation, reason,
invention or imagination." So, through ancestral competition among
males and the survival of the fittest, intelligence evolved—in men.

190 ANATOMY OF LOVE

An aggressive, intelligent Adam, a gentle, simple Eve; proof of this

gender inequality Darwin saw everywhere around him. The poets,
merchants, politicians, scientists, artists, and philosophers of
Victorian England were overwhelmingly men. Moreover, Paul Broca,
the eminent nineteenth-century French neurologist and authority on
race, had confirmed the belief in feminine intellectual inferiority. After
calculating the brain weights of over a hundred men and women
whose bodies were autopsied in Paris hospitals, Broca wrote in 1861,
"Women are, on the average, a little less intelligent than men, a
difference which we should not exaggerate but which is, nonetheless,
real." 1

Broca had not corrected his calculations for the smaller body size of
women. He had used an impeccable "correction formula" to prove that
the French were just as capable as the Germans. But he did not make
the necessary mathematical adjustments on his female skulls.
Everyone knew that women were intellectually inferior anyway; such
was the climate of the times.

This sexist credo saw a bitter reaction after World War I. Margaret
Mead was among the intellectual leaders of the 1920s who emphasized
the predominance of nurture over nature. The environment, she said,
molded personality. As she wrote in 1935, "We may say that many if
not all the personality traits which we have called masculine and
feminine are as lightly linked to sex as are the clothing, the manners
and the form of headdress that a society at a given period assigns to
either sex." 2

Mead's message spelled hope for women—as well as for ethnic

minorities, immigrants, and the poor—and helped usher into scientific
dogma the concept of "cultural determinism," the doctrine that people
are essentially all similar. 3 Strip men and women of a few cultural
ornaments, and you have basically the same animal; society and
upbringing make women behave like women and men act like men.
Biology begone.

The 1930s and following decades saw a rash of scientific treatises

proclaiming that men and women were inherently alike. But now the
tide has turned again. A host of new data have emerged, and

today many scientists think that the sexes are quite different and that
these differences begin to be established in the human brain during
development in the womb.

When egg meets sperm and conception occurs, the embryo has neither
male nor female genitals. But around the sixth week of fetal life a
genetic switch flips and chromosomes direct the precursors of the
gonads to develop into testes or ovaries. Now the die is cast. The
differentiating gonads, if testes, begin to produce fetal testosterone.
And as this powerful male hormone surges through embryonic tissues
during the third month of life, it builds the male genitals. These fetal
hormones also pattern the male brain. If the embryo is to be a girl, it
develops without the stimulus of male hormones, and female genitals
emerge—along with the female brain. 4

So hormones "sex" the fetal brain. And several scientists think that
this brain architecture plays a role in creating the gender differences
that appear in later life. I will add that these gender differences came
across the centuries, out of our distant past when ancestral men and
women began to pair and raise their young as "husband" and "wife."

The Gift of Gab

In tests of verbal abilities among Americans, it is becoming clear that,

on average, little girls speak sooner than boys. They speak more
fluently, with greater grammatical accuracy, and with more words per
utterance. By age ten, girls excel at verbal reasoning, written prose,
verbal memory, pronunciation, and spelling. They are better at foreign
languages. They stutter less. .They exhibit dyslexia four times less
often than boys. And far fewer girls are remedial readers. 5 This is not
to say that boys are inarticulate or that all boys have weaker verbal
skills than all girls. Men vary; women vary. In fact, there is more
variation within each gender than there is between them. 6 Proof lies
in our Western heritage. For the past four thousand years, Western
culture has suppressed women's opportunities to be orators, writers,
poets, or playwrights and cultivated male geniuses. Not surprisingly,
the vast majority of our public speakers and literary giants have been
men. But scientists are beginning to

agree that, on average, women exhibit more verbal skills than men.

These gender differences could be purely learned. Some argue, for

example, that because infant girls are born more mature than boys,
girls enter life with a slight edge in language ability that parents and
the school system then cultivate as they age. 7 In fact, a host of
arguments have been marshaled for the possibility that verbal skills
are instilled more regularly in girls than in boys. 8 But data now
suggest that these sex differences have an underlying biological
component as well.

Women are more verbally fluent not only in the United States but in
places as diverse as England, Czechoslovakia, and Nepal. 9 The
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement recently reported that in some 43,000 writing samples of
students in fourteen countries on five continents, girls expressed their
thoughts more clearly on paper. The most compelling argument for
women's verbal superiority, however, is the link between estrogen, the
female hormone, and female verbal skills.

In a recent study of two hundred women of reproductive age,

psychologists showed that during the middle of the monthly menstrual
cycle, when estrogen levels peaked, women were at their best verbally.
10 When asked, for example, to repeat the tongue twister "A box of
mixed biscuits in a biscuit mixer" five times as fast as possible, they
performed particularly well at midcycle. Directly after menses, when
estrogen levels were much lower, these women's speed declined. Even
at their worst, most of these women outstripped men on all verbal
tasks.

The Math Gap

Men excel, on average, at higher mathematical problems (not at

arithmetic). And they are generally better at reading maps, solving
mazes, and completing several other visual-spatial-quantitative tasks.
11

Some of these skills appear in childhood. Little boys take toys apart
and explore more of the space around them. They are better at
tracking objects in space, and they see abstract patterns and
relationships more accurately. By age ten, more boys can rotate three-
dimensional objects in their mind's eye, accurately perceive three-

dimensional spaces on flat paper, and begin to score higher on some

other mechanical and spatial problems. Then at puberty boys begin to
outstrip girls in algebra, in geometry, and in other subjects involving
visual-spatial-quantitative skills. 12

In one test of nearly 50,000 seventh-graders who took the standard

Scholastic Aptitude Test, 260 boys and 20 girls scored over 700 (out of
800) on mathematical problems—a ratio of 13 to 1. 13 In the United
States three out of four Ph.D/s in math are awarded to men. And these
gender differences in spatial acuity and interest in mathematics are
seen in several other cultures. 14

Like verbal skills in females, these abilities observed in many boys and
men clearly have a large cultural component. But there is also a link
between the predominant male hormone, testosterone, the male Y
chromosome, and excellence in math and certain visual-spatial-
quantitative tasks. Girls who receive abnormally high doses of male
hormones in the womb (because of fetal malfunctions or drugs that
the mother took while pregnant) exhibit tomboyish behavior in
childhood—and do better on math exams in teenage. Conversely,
pubescent boys with low levels of testosterone do poorly on spatial
tasks. Moreover, men with an extra Y chromosome (XYY) score higher
on visual-spatial tests, and those with an extra female X chromosome
(XXY, or Klinefelter's syndrome) have a poorer spatial aptitude. 15

I am not suggesting that women have developed no superior spatial

skills. On the contrary, scientists Irwin Silverman and Marion Beals
recently uncovered an intriguing feminine spatial aptitude. They
displayed several dissimilar objects in a room and drawn on a piece of
paper and instructed men and women to memorize the objects that
they saw. Then they asked the participants to recall what they had
memorized. The results: women were able to remember a great many
more of these stationary objects and their locations. 16

So each gender has specific spatial talents.

Does society train women to fail at math and men to fail at English?

Several cultural explanations have been proposed to explain these

gender differences: teachers' assumptions and their treatment of stu-

dents, parents' attitudes toward their children and how they train boys
and girls to be adults, society's perception that math is masculine, the
different games and sports that boys and girls play, each gender's self-
perception and ambitions, the many social pressures on adolescents,
even the way that tests are designed and how scientists interpret the
results all undoubtedly affect test scores. 17 Scholastic Aptitude Test
scores, for example, vary as much with social class and ethnic
background as with gender. And the gap between male and female
performance on standardized math tests has declined since the 1970s.

Is biology destiny?

Not at all. No one denies that culture plays an enormous role in

molding human action. But it is unscientific to overlook some equally
significant facts: the body of data on gender differences in infants, the
persistence of male/female differences on tests other than the SATs,
the fact that adolescent girls do not fall behind on other tasks because
of social pressure, the corroborative data from other countries, and the
literature linking testosterone with spatial skills and estrogen with
verbal aptitude all support the view that the sexes do indeed exhibit
gender differences in some spatial and verbal abilities—and that these
gender differences stem, at least in part, from male/female variations
in biology.

I can add only that, from an anthropological perspective, these gender

differences make evolutionary sense. As ancestral males began to
scout and track and surround animals millennia ago, those males who
were good at maps and mazes could well have survived
disproportionately. Ancestral women needed to locate vegetable foods
within an elaborate matrix of vegetation instead, so they developed a
superior ability to remember the locations of stationary objects, a
different spatial talent. And for women whose job it was to rear the
young, verbal skills may have been critical as well.

Hence I will argue that as pair-bonding emerged and the human

hunting-gathering-scavenging tradition took shape, so did these subtle
gender differences in aptitude.

Other variations between the sexes could have a biological foundation

and may also have evolved during our long nomadic past.

Woman 9 s Intuition

"It is generally admitted," wrote Darwin, "that with woman the powers
of intuition ... are more strongly marked than in man." 18

Science is beginning to prove Darwin right. Tests show that, on

average, women read emotions, context, and all sorts of peripheral
nonverbal information more effectively than men. 19 A slight twist of
the head, lips pulled taut, shoulders hunched, a shift of body weight, a
change in tone of voice—any of these subtle movements can lead a
woman to feel that her guest is uncomfortable, fearful, angry, or
disappointed. Could this aptitude stem from brain anatomy? Perhaps.

The bundle of nerve fibers that connect the two sides of the brain, the
corpus callosum, thickens and bulges toward the rear in women but is
uniformly cylindrical in men. 20 Hence the two sides of a woman's
brain are better connected. The sections within each hemisphere may
be better connected too. 21 And from several hundred experiments on
stroke victims, on patients with brain tumors or injuries, and on
normal subjects, it now appears that women's skills are more widely
distributed throughout the cortex, that men's skills are more localized
and more compartmentalized and that their hemispheres operate
slightly more independently. 22

This brain circuitry suggests an explanation for women's intuition.

Perhaps women absorb cues from a wider range of visual, aural,
tactile, and olfactory senses simultaneously. Then they connect these
ancillary bits of information—giving women that ready insight that
Darwin extolled.

And it is not illogical to suggest that if there is a biological component

to women's intuition, it evolved in large part to help women detect the
needs of their growing infants millennia ago. 23
Female verbal skills, male excellence at math and some spatial
problems, and feminine intuition are not the only differences between
the sexes that appear to have a biological component and could well
have developed during our long prehistory.

Women of all ages have better "fine" motor coordination,

manipulating tiny objects with ease. (No wonder they are better at
sewing! They would also be better with a surgeon's scalpel.) This
feminine dexterity even increases during the middle of the menstrual
cycle, when estrogen levels are at their highest—suggesting that there
is a physiological element to this fine manual prowess. 24 Boys and
men are, on the average, more dexterous at gross motor skills
requiring speed and force, from running and jumping to throwing
sticks and stones and balls. 25

Once again, these gender differences make evolutionary sense. As

ancestral women picked more seeds and berries and more regularly
picked the grass and dirt and twigs off their young, those with superior
fine motor dexterity may have survived disproportionately—selecting
for this trait in modern women. On the other hand, it seems likely that
as men hurled more weapons at predators and moving beasts, a male
aptitude for gross motor coordination emerged.

Boys Will Be Boys

A last trait distinguishes men and women: just as Darwin said, men
are, on average, more aggressive and women do more nurturing.

In a telling study of aggressiveness in villages in Japan, the

Philippines, Mexico, Kenya, and India, as well as in "Orchard Town,"
an anonymous New England city, anthropologists Beatrice and John
Whiting found that boys were more aggressive in each culture. 26
Psychologists confirm this for Americans. Boy toddlers grab and
scratch. Nursery school boys chase and wrestle. Teenage boys like
contact sports. Rough-and-tumble play is almost exclusively a male
preoccupation throughout childhood, as it is in other primates. More
men are drawn to the violent acts of war. And the vast majority of
homicides around the world are committed by men, often by young
men with high levels of testosterone. 27

I am not suggesting that women are unaggressive. We all know that

women can be exceedingly tough-minded, sometimes physically
violent—and they are very protective of their young. Just threaten a
baby to see a mother's vicious rage. But some scientists think that

in females the environment may play a larger role in aggressive

interactions whereas male aggression is more governed by hormones
instead. 28

This aggressive spirit certainly would have served men well as they
strode forth to confront their predators and enemies on the grasslands
of Africa a few million years ago.

Nurturing is often considered to be the female counterpart to male

aggressiveness. Women of every ethnic group and culture around the
world (and every other primate species) show more interest in infants
and more tolerance of their needs. Moreover, in every society on
record, women do the majority of daily infant-rearing tasks. 29

Some would like to attribute feminine nurturance to learned behavior.

But data indicate that this, too, may have a biological foundation. 30
Infant girls chatter, smile, and coo to people's faces, while boys are just
as likely to babble at objects and blinking lights. Infant girls are more
sensitive to touch, high sounds, loud noises, voice inflection, tastes,
and smells. Little girls have longer attention spans and devote more
time to fewer projects; boys are more distractible, more active, more
exploratory. Girls are more attracted to new people, while boys are
drawn to novel toys. And girls are better at discerning your emotional
state from your tone of voice. All of these traits are useful to rearing
young.

In her 1982 book, In a Different Voice, psychologist Carol Gilli-gan

proposes that women also have an outstanding sensitivity for
interpersonal relationships. In interviews with over a hundred men
and women, boys and girls, she and her colleagues found that women
cast themselves as actors in a web of attachments, affiliations,
obligations, and responsibilities to others. Then they nurture these ties
— another attribute helpful to raising babies in a group.

As male aggressiveness is linked to testosterone, so female nurturing

also seems to have a physiological component. Individuals born with
only one X chromosome, or Turner's syndrome, are "extremely
feminine"; they show less interest in sports and childhood fighting and
are more interested in personal adornment than are normal girls. They
also score extremely low on tests of mathematical and spatial

tasks. But these girls are very interested in marriage and are strongly
drawn to children. 31

Perhaps women's sensitivity to interpersonal relationships, their need

for affiliation, their natural interest in people's faces, their heightened
sense of noise and smell and touch and taste, and their longer
attention span are yet more aspects of the feminine psyche that
evolved as ancestral females nurtured their young millennia ago.

'if it's true we are descended from the ape, it must have been from two
different species. There's no likeness between us, is there?" said a man
to a woman in August Strindberg's 1887 play, The Father. The
misogynistic Swede was, of course, exaggerating. But men and women,
on average, seem to be endowed with varying spatial, verbal, and
intuitive skills, different kinds of hand-eye coordination, and
dissimilarities in aggressiveness and nurturing behavior that appear to
have a biological component. And logic holds that they emerged with
the evolution of the human hunting-gathering tradition.

Nevertheless, neither sex is more intelligent than the other.

Here Darwin was wrong. Intelligence is a collage of thousands of

separate abilities, not a single trait. Some people excel at reading maps
or recognizing faces. Others can mentally rotate objects, fix a car, or
write a poem. Some people reason well at thorny scientific problems,
while others reason well in difficult social situations. Some people
learn music rapidly; others can learn a foreign language in weeks.
Some remember economic theories; others recall philosophical ideas.
Some people just remember more of everything but can't express what
they know or apply it meaningfully; others know far less but express
themselves creatively and have a greater capacity to generalize or use
their knowledge or ideas. Hence the magnificent variety in human
sagacity, wit, and personality.

The sexes are not identical, however. Some women are brilliant
mathematicians, composers, or chess players; some men are the
world's finest orators, playwrights, and interpreters. But a good deal of
data suggests that, on average, each gender has an undercurrent, a
melody, a theme.

Why can't a man be more like a woman?

Why can't a woman be more like a man?

Selection for spatial and verbal skills, for female intuition, for gross
versus fine motor coordination, for aggressiveness and nurturing
behavior, may have begun even before our female and male forebears
emerged on the grassland of the ancient world to start scavenging,
hunting, and collecting for a living.

"Darwinian Man, though well-behaved, / At best is only a monkey

shaved." So goes the ditty written by the English librettist W. S.
Gilbert. Indeed, modern scientists are not the first to think there is
continuity between man and beast. Confirming it, however, is
anthropologist William McGrew who has found rudiments of the
human hunting-gathering tradition among modern chimpanzees. 32

As you recall, male chimps that live along Lake Tanganyika, in East
Africa, hunt. They stalk, chase, and kill animals! These are spatial,
quiet, aggressive tasks. Males also scout along the border of their
range and guard the community territory—occupations that are more
spatial, silent, and aggressive. And male chimps throw more foliage
and rocks—gross motor habits.

Female chimps gather. They engage in termite fishing and ant dipping
three times more often than males do. These tasks require minute
manual dexterity. Female common chimps also engage in more social
grooming, using fine motor dexterity to pick tiny specks from one
another for hours at a time. And while they forage and groom one
another, female chimps interact with their young, touching and
vocalizing. This has spurred their verbal skills. Like their counterparts
among many higher primates, male chimps tend to bark, growl, and
roar, to make strident aggressive sounds, while females make more
"clear calls," appeals for affiliation. 33

These data suggest that some of the modern differences between the
genders preceded our descent onto the grasslands of Africa. Then, as
our forebears began to collect small game, to hunt, to scavenge, and to
forage for seeds and berries on the open plains, these gender roles
must have become critical to survival—selecting for today's
male/female differences in spatial and verbal skills, as well as
intuition, hand-eye coordination, and aggressiveness.

"The Gorge"

We have, of course, no physical evidence of male scavenging and

hunting or female gathering among Lucy and her relatives who
strolled across the savannas of Africa almost four million years ago.
We have only footprints and a few old bones. But the fossil record
becomes more abundant by two million years ago. And some peculiar
archaeological remains suggest that human gender roles—and gender
differences in the brain—had started to emerge.

The data come from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, a barren, desiccated

canyon land where over the last 200,000 years a river has cut a deep
seam between the rocks, exposing a layer cake of ancient geological
strata. Since the 1930s Mary and Louis Leakey had been digging in
this crevasse, looking for evidence of early man. And in 1959 Mary
discovered a site at the bottom of the gorge, Bed I, that exposed life as
it had been between 1.7 and 1.9 million years ago.

The area had been a shallow, brackish, emerald-colored lake

surrounded by marsh, bush, and trees. Pelicans, storks, herons, and
hippos had waded through the tranquil pools. Crocodiles had floated
in the brine. And ducks and geese had nested in the papyrus reeds at
the water's edge. Sloping off the lake, the brush merged into high open
countryside, dotted here and there with acacia trees. At the horizon
were forests of mahoganies and evergreens that stretched up
mountain slopes toward volcanic peaks.

On the eastern edge of the extinct lake, where salty marshes were once
fed by freshwater streams, Mary Leakey unearthed over twenty-five
hundred ancient tools and fragments of worked stone. 34 Someone
with "a good eye" had made these tools. Some were big chunks of lava,
quartzite, or other stones that had a few edges whacked off to make a
sharpened edge. Others were fragmentary flakes that had been
chipped from larger rocks. "Debitage," small slivers of sharp stone,
and manuports, hunks of unfashioned stone, were strewn along the
shore. Some of these tools were of local stone; others came from
outcroppings, stream channels, and lava flows kilometers away. Some
had been made elsewhere and then been left whole beside the lake.
Others had been chipped or worked at the

marsh and carried off, leaving only their detritus behind. Here, then,
was a tool factory and depository.

Known as Oldowan tools, these primitive choppers and scrapers are

not the oldest ever found. Two and a half million years ago someone
left tools in Ethiopia. But these utensils at Olduvai, Bed I, were special.

Around them lay some sixty thousand bits of animal bones. Elephants,
hippos, rhinos, pigs, buffalo, horses, giraffes, oryx, elands, wildebeests,
kongoni, topis, waterbucks, bushbucks, reedbucks, Grant's gazelles,
Thompson's gazelles, and impalas made up the larger species. The
remains of turtles, elephant shrews, hares, and ducks, and the bones of
hundreds of other smaller animals and birds lay here as well. In the
1960s and 1970s the Leakeys uncovered five more sites along this
ancient lake. At one, an elephant had been butchered.

Like palimpsests, these assemblages at Olduvai are blackboards half

erased. But the brand-new field of taphonomy has begun to establish
what happened beside this lake so long ago.
Bone Puzzles

Taphonomy is the ingenious science that studies fossilized bones by

working backward. 35 By looking at how modern people butcher meat,
how other carnivores such as lions or hyenas chew on bones, and how
water and wind spread bones across the landscape, taphono-mists
establish how ancient bones arrive in the positions and conditions that
they are in. For example, taphonomists have watched hunters cut up
carcasses and they report that when hunters remove the flesh, they
leave cut marks in the center of the long bones; to harvest skin and
tendons they etch distinctive cut marks at the ends of bones instead.
Hyenas, on the other hand, chew the feet and ends of bones, leaving
quite different marks on bone refuse.

Using these and many other taphonomic clues, anthropologists have

tried to piece together what happened at Olduvai some two million
years ago. Most convincing is the work of Henry Bunn and Ellen Kroll.
36

After studying all of these ancient bones, these anthropologists

proposed that our ancestors caught the turtles, shrews, herons, and
other little creatures with cord traps or with their hands. They surmise
that, because lions would have dragged off the entire carcass, our
forebears hunted and killed the middle-sized animals like gazelles. The
larger animal bones without carnivore teeth marks on them probably
were those of animals our ancestors collected at the end of the dry
season, when animals collapse. And the bones with carnivore tooth
marks on them our forebears undoubtedly scavenged.

Maybe they drove their carnivore competitors from a meal, just long
enough to steal joints, the "bully sneak" strategy. Perhaps they picked
over the remains after their rivals had wandered off to snooze instead.
They could also have stolen the carcasses that leopards dragged into
trees. 37

Our ancient forebears not only collected, scavenged, and hunted

animals, but they must have butchered these beasts. Some of the tools
have microscopic scratches that come from cutting meat. Many of the
bones have parallel cut marks in the middle of the shaft where
someone must have sliced off chunks of flesh. And other fossil bones
have tool cut marks at the joints where someone disarticulated limbs
and carried these long bones to the shore.

Last, the disproportionately large number of meaty limb bones from

middle-sized animals like wildebeests suggests that our ancestors had
enough meat for "cooperative group sharing." "People" had begun to
butcher, carry, and share meat almost two million years ago. 38

But why are the bones and stones in discrete heaps? After lengthy
analysis of the bones, the tools, and the sites and of computer
simulations combining all these data with factors like energy
expenditure, time of travel, and other variables, anthropologist
Richard Potts has theorized that these piles of bones and stones at
Olduvai were "stone caches," places where our ancestors stashed their
tools and stone raw materials. 39 Here they made tools, left tools, and
brought animal parts to be processed quickly. Then, after chopping off
meat, extracting marrow, and harvesting skin or tendons, they
abandoned the butchery station before the hyenas arrived. When they
were in the area again with meat in hand, they revisited one of these
stone caches.

Year upon decade upon century the bones and tools and raw materials
accumulated. Then Mary Leakey found these garbage heaps.

These refuse dumps say something important about women, men, and
the evolution of gender skills. If our ancestors two million years ago
had stone caches spotted along the landscape, complete with tools and
raw materials to butcher meat, then clearly these early peoples
coordinated their activities, engaged in the dangerous pursuit of
getting meat from middle- to large-sized animals, delayed eating it,
carried joints to specific shared locations beside the lake, butchered
meat, and had enough food to share it with relatives and friends. And
it is highly unlikely that many ancestral females, often burdened with
small children, engaged in the dangerous activities of hunting or
scavenging even medium-sized beasts.
For decades after Darwin initiated the "man the hunter" concept,
academics ignored the roles of early females. But in the early 1980s
revisionist anthropologists began to set the record straight. 40 And
today most think ancestral women engaged chiefly in the far more
productive, dependable activity of collecting nuts, berries, vegetables,
and delicacies like eggs and fruit.

Unfortunately the principal tools of gathering—the digging stick and

the pouch—do not normally fossilize. But scientists have recently
found broken long bones of antelopes in the cave at Swart-krans, in
southern Africa, that had polished ends. Microscopic wear patterns
near the tips indicate that someone had used these implements for
digging vegetables too. Ancient teeth from this era suggest that our
ancestors also ate a lot of fruit. 41 In fact, Potts suggests that meat
composed less than 20 percent of the diet.

So if men did more of the hunting and scavenging whereas women did
the bulk of the collecting of vegetables, women had essential jobs two
million years ago.

With time, these gender roles would select for men's knack for maps
and mazes and other spatial skills, their aggressiveness, and their
gross motor coordination. And as days turned into centuries, women's
spatial memory for stationary objects, their verbal acuity, their facility
for nurturing, their fine motor abilities, and their uncanny intuition
would become firmly established as well.

The Nature of Intimacy

These gender traits may explain some misunderstandings between the

sexes. We struggle, you and I, with intimacy. In poll after book after
article women express their disappointment that their mates do not
talk out their problems, do not express their emotions, do not listen,
do not share—verbally. Women derive intimacy from talking. No
doubt this form of intimacy comes from their long prehistory as
nurturers.

Sociologist Harry Brod reports that men often seek intimacy

differently. "Numerous studies," he writes, "have established that men
are more likely to define emotional closeness as working or playing
side by side, while women often view it as talking face to face." 42
Men, for example, derive intimacy from playing and watching sports. I
am not surprised. What is a football game but a map, a maze, a puzzle,
spatial action, and aggressive competition—all of which engage skills
that appeal to the male brain. In fact, watching a football game on
television is not very different from sitting behind a bush on the
African veldt, trying to judge which route the giraffes will take. No
wonder most women do not understand why men get such pleasure
from watching sports; these pastimes don't ring a chord in their
evolutionary psyches.

Psychologists have even begun to capitalize on this gender variation in

intimacy. One Iowa psychologist advertises his kind of therapy, "For
men only," in the yellow pages of the telephone book. He offers help to
men by means of sports activities, dance, and drama. Talking, he
maintains, is a female approach—inappropriate for men. The rest of us
would do well to remember this male/female distinction. A woman
should probably adopt at least one nonverbal, side-by-side leisure
activity that her spouse enjoys, whereas men could improve their
home lives if they took time out to sit face-to-face with their mates and
engage in talk and "active listening."

Another possible gender variation in standards of intimacy may stem

from our ancestry. Psychologists maintain that women more regularly
seek to feel included, connected, and attached, while men more often
enjoy space, privacy, and autonomy. 43 As a result,

women say they feel evaded by a husband, and men report they feel
invaded by a wife. Could a woman's drive to be included come from a
time when women's roles as nurturers selected for those who felt
comfortable in a group? Perhaps men's need to seek autonomy harks
back to those days, too, when men made their living as solitary,
stealthy scouts and trackers—selecting for those individuals who enjoy
space and unconnectedness today.

We may have some sexual tastes that come from our distant past as
well. Some men are voyeurs. Some like to look at visual porn. Others
have an indefatigable love for erotic underwear, nighties, and sex
gadgets. In fact, men's sexual fantasies are regularly aroused by visual
stimuli of all sorts. 44 Perhaps these partialities are, in part, directed
by their more spatial brains. Women like romance novels and soap
operas on television—tepid verbal porn. Maybe these inclinations arise
from their sensitivity to language.

This is not to say that all men are voyeurs, that all men feel invaded by
their wives, or that all men derive intimacy from sports or are verbally
unexpressive. Nor do all women read romance novels, shun television
football, or derive a feeling of intimacy from talking face-to-face. The
mixture of appetites in any one human personality is vast; I marvel at
how strikingly different people are. But these gender differences in
conduct have been recorded.

And one must admit that men puzzle over the age-old question "What
do women want?" Women, on the other hand, regularly say, "They just
don't understand." I suspect our ancestors had begun to mystify one
another by two million years ago, when males and females began to
split up to forage around the emerald lake at Olduvai and our
fundamental human gender skills had started to emerge.

Who were these "people" at Olduvai?

The bones of two separate species of early hominids have been

recovered from Bed I, the bottom sedimentary layer of the gorge.
Individuals with enormous cheek teeth and buttressed skulls known as
Australopithecus hoisei lived along the lake, then died out about a
million years ago. Although these creatures had expanded cranial

capacities of 430 to 550 cubic centimeters and related specimens had

hands capable of making tools to fell and butcher prey, 45 their
monstrous jaws and the structure and wear patterns on their teeth
suggest that they sat in the reeds instead and chewed enormous
quantities of tough, fibrous vegetables, nuts, and seeds. These
probably were not hunters.
"Handy Man," or Homo habilis, lived here too. These people had
gracile skulls and smaller cheek teeth. The original four fossil
specimens found were nicknamed Twiggy (a crushed cranium with
seven teeth), George (teeth and skull fragments), Cindy, and Johnny's
Child (more bits of ancient jaws and teeth). All had died near streams
where fresh drinking water tumbled into salty marsh on the eastern
margin of the lake some 1.9 million years ago. Recently the partial
skeleton of a woman was also recovered; she stood only three feet tall.
46

To the north at Koobi Fora, a parched, desolate spit of land that

extends into today's Lake Turkana in northern Kenya, were Twiggy's
relatives. Here Richard Leakey, the son of Mary and Louis Leakey, has
uncovered over three hundred specimens since 1968. A mother lode.
The most famous fossil was a skull that has acquired the name 1470,
after its catalog number. Why is 1470 so important?

Because this individual had an expanded brain volume of 600 to 800

cubic centimeters. Moreover, like Twiggy and the other specimens of
Handy Man, 1470 had a cranial volume well above that of his or her
contemporaries, the australopithecines, and about half the cranial
capacity of modern people.

Our gang was getting smarter. Anthropologist Ralph Holloway has

exposed the contours of their brains by making latex casts of the
insides of these fossil skulls. He reports that the frontal and parietal
areas of the cortex—the portions of the brain used to discriminate,
categorize, reflect, and reason—had begun to assume a modern shape.
Twiggy and her relatives could well have developed the ability to plan
ahead.

They may have discussed their plans too. Holloway's endocasts show a
slight bulge in Broca's area, named after the nineteenth-century
neurologist I mentioned in the beginning of this chapter. Broca's area
is a portion of the cortex above the left ear that directs

the mouth, tongue, throat, and vocal cords to produce speech sounds.
In the brain of 1470, as well as in other speciments of Handy Man, this
language section had begun to swell. 47

Language is the hallmark of humanity. Although there are over ten

thousand works on the origin of language, no one has been able to
explain how or when our ancestors first began to arbitrarily assign
words to objects (like dog for the tail-wagging, four-legged creature we
play with in the yard), to break down these words into separate sounds
(like d-o-g), or to recombine these tiny noises to make novel words
with novel meanings (like g-o-d). But with all our meaningless little
squeaks and hisses, clicks and hoos, strung together to make words,
with all our words linked to one another according to grammatical
rules to make sentences, humankind would eventually dominate the
earth.

Twiggy may have crossed this threshold of humanity.

Did Twiggy call hello to her lover as she returned from collecting nuts?
Did she verbally describe the animal tracks she had seen on the plains
or whisper that she loved her mate as she curled up to sleep? Did
George and 1470 reprimand their infants, tell jokes, weave tales, lie,
give compliments, discuss tomorrow and yesterday—with words?
Certainly not the way you and I do. Postures, gestures, facial
expressions, and intonations were probably critical to the message too.
But since Broca's area was indeed expanding in the brain, Twiggy
probably conversed with primitive, prehuman language.

Man the scout, tracker, explorer, scavenger, hunter, and protector.

Woman the gatherer, nurturer, mediator, and educator. We may never
know which early peoples first began to do separate tasks. But
someone carted chunks of meat into the reeds and stripped these
bones two million years ago. 48 And I do not think that females with
small children were the hunters or the butchers.

At the same time, there is no reason to think that either sex had rigid,
formal roles. Probably females without children joined and even led
scavenging and hunting parties. Certainly men often gathered plants
and nuts and berries. Probably some couples beat the grass together to
catch small animals. But our ancestors had begun to
collect, butcher, and share meat. The sexes had started to make their
living as a team.

Freud called the female psyche the "dark continent" for good reason.
For decades, if not centuries, scientists in search of an understanding
of human nature have used male behavior as a bench mark and
compared all data on females with this standard. Hence we have
known almost nothing about the biological tendencies of women.
Times have changed. And from what we now know of the feminine
psyche, it is becoming evident that the sexes were designed across the
millennia to put their heads together.

This hunting-gathering life-style would produce an intricate balance

between women, men, and power.

11

W£)men, Men, and Power

The Nature of Sexual Politics

Everything is the sum of the past, and nothing is comprehensible

except through its history.

— Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

J.ei

ens of thousands of women, their faces smeared with ashes, wearing

loincloths and wreaths of ferns, poured from villages across
southeastern Nigeria one morning in 1929 and marched to their local
"native administration'' centers. There the district's British colonial
officers resided. They congregated outside these administrators' doors
and shook traditional war sticks, danced, ridiculed them with
scurrilous songs, and demanded the insignia of the local Igbo men
who had collaborated with this enemy. At a few administration centers
women broke into jails to free prisoners; at others they burned or tore
apart native-court buildings. But they hurt no one.

The British retaliated, opening fire on protesters in two centers,

slaughtering sixty women. So ended the insurrection. The British
"won."

History often records the words of victors, and this "Women's

War/' as the Igbo called it, soon acquired its British name, the Aba
Riots. 1 But the British never comprehended what this war was all
about—that it was orchestrated entirely by women and for women; the
notion of a violation of women's rights was beyond their grasp.
Instead, most of the British officers were convinced that Igbo men had
organized this demonstration, then directed their spouses to revolt.
Igbo wives had rioted, colonial officials reasoned, because they
thought the British would not fire on the weaker sex. 2

A colossal cultural chasm stretched between the British and the Igbo—
a gulf that gave rise to the Igbo Women's War and symbolized a
profound European misunderstanding about women, men, and power
in cultures around the world.

For centuries these Igbo women, like women in many other West
African societies, had been autonomous and powerful, economically
and politically. They lived in patrilineal villages where power was
informal; anyone could participate in Igbo village assemblies. Men
engaged in more of the discussions and normally offered the final
settlement on disputes. Men had more resources, so they could pay the
fees and hold the feasts that brought them more titles and prestige.
And men controlled the land. But at marriage a husband was obliged
to give his wife some property to farm.

This soil was a woman's bank account. Women grew a variety of crops
and took their produce to local markets run entirely by women. 3 And
women came home with luxury goods and money that they kept. So
Igbo women had independent wealth—financial freedom, economic
power. Thus, if a man let his cows graze in a woman's fields,
mistreated his wife, violated the market code, or committed some
other serious crime, women did what they would do to the British
administrators: they assembled at the offender's home, chanted
insults, sometimes even destroyed his house. Igbo men respected
women, women's work, women's rights, and women's laws.

Enter the British. In 1900 England declared southern Nigeria a

protectorate and set up a system of native-court areas; each district
was governed by a British colonial officer from a district seat, the
native court. This was unpopular enough. Then the British appointed
one representative from each village, a warrant chief, to

membership in each district's native court. Often this was a young

Igbo who had curried favor with the conquerors rather than a
respected village elder; always it was a man. Steeped in the Victorian
belief that wives were appendages of their husbands, the British could
not conceive of women in positions of power. So they excluded
women, one and all. Igbo women lost their voice.

Then, in 1929, the British decided to take inventories of women's

goods. Fearing impending taxation, Igbo women met in their market
squares to discuss this crippling economic action. They were ready to
rebel. And after a series of flare-ups between women and census takers
in November, they dressed in traditional battle garments and went to
war, an uprising that erupted over six thousand square miles and
involved tens of thousands of women.

After the British quashed the revolution, Igbo women requested that
they, too, serve as village representatives in the native courts. To no
avail. As far as the British were concerned, a woman's place was in the
home.

"It's a Man's World"

The Western conviction that men universally dominate women passes

like a deleterious gene from one generation to the next. 4 Is this true?
Has it always been so? To explore the long evolutionary history of
women, men, and power, let me first unravel what we know of gender
relations in societies around the world today.

Before the women's movement of the 1970s, American and European

anthropologists simply assumed that men were always more powerful
than women, and their research reflected their convictions. Accounts
of the Australian aborigines provide a striking example.

Several academics—mostly men—wrote that these people's marriage

system, in which infant girls were married to men thirty years their
senior and men had several wives, was the crowning example of male
rule. From their perspective, aboriginal women were pawns,
commodities, currency in the marriage manipulations of men. 5 They
explained the aborigines' separate men's and women's religious
ceremonies as evidence of women's subordination too. And as for
women's work, Ashley Montagu summed it up in 1937, calling the

women no more than "domesticated cows." 6

Today we know that this picture of aboriginal life is distorted. Women

ethnographers have gone into the Australian outback and talked to
women. From conversations during gathering expeditions, at
swimming parties, across the firelight, these scholars have established
that Australian aboriginal women politick avidly in the betrothal poker
game and begin to choose their own new husbands by middle age.
Women regularly engage lovers. Some tribes have a jilimi, or single
women's camp, where widows, estranged wives, and visiting women
live or visit, free of men. Far from being a battered wife, a woman
sometimes hits a lazy husband with her "fighting stick." Women hold
some rituals that are closed to men. And women's economic
contributions are vital to daily life. In short, although women's and
men's activities are often segregated, Australian aboriginal women
appear to be every bit as powerful as men. 7

Neither sex dominated—a concept that was apparently foreign to

Western scholars. An obsession with hierarchy, in concert with deeply
ingrained beliefs about gender, colored scientific analyses of other
peoples.
This changed during the women's movement when feminist
anthropologists began to challenge the dogma of universal female
subordination. They argued that because men had done most of the
fieldwork, spoken mostly to male informants, and primarily observed
men's activities, many anthropological reports were biased; the voices
of women had not been heard.

Some charged, moreover, that male anthropologists had misconstrued

what they saw, denigrating women's work as "housework," women's
conversations as superficial "gossip," women's artistry as "crafts," and
women's participation in ceremonies as "nonsacred," while
aggrandizing hunting, men's arts, men's religious rituals, men's
oratory, and many other male pursuits. 8 Because of selective
blindness, androcentrism, or sexist bias—call it what you wish—
women's work and women's lives had been ignored, tainting
anthropological reports.

These accusations are not entirely true. Sociologist Martin Whyte

recently compared gender roles in ninety-three traditional societies

and noted that in some of these studies, data on women's roles were
neglected or minimized; in others, aspects of men's power were
disregarded. These omissions were random, however, rather than
systematically biased against women. Moreover, these oversights were
not linked specifically to male or female authors. Androcen-trism may
not be as pervasive as some feminists report. 9

Nevertheless, even a casual reader of the literature can point to some

classic ethnographies in which women look like faceless drones. And
the ubiquitous articles about "man the hunter" have only recently
become balanced by literature on "woman the gatherer." So the
feminist era turned the tide, adding a necessary lens to scholarly
investigations of other peoples, women as well as men.

This new focus on women's lives has uncovered a reality of extreme

importance: like the Igbo women of Nigeria, women in a great many
other traditional cultures were relatively powerful — before the
coming of the Europeans. 10 Some survived Western influence with
their power intact. But many others, like the Igbo, fell victim to
European mores.

Anthropologist Eleanor Leacock arrived at this conclusion while

studying the Montagnais-Naskapi Indians of eastern Canada. Most
instructive to her were the journals of the Jesuit Paul Le Jeune. Le
Jeune took up his post as superior of the French mission at Quebec in
1632. Here he wintered with the Montagnais-Naskapi. To his horror,
he saw indulgent parents, independent women, divorced men and
women, men with two wives, no formal leaders, a peripatetic, relaxed,
egalitarian culture in which women enjoyed a high economic and
social status.

This state of affairs Le Jeune resolved to change. He was convinced

that discipline for children, marital fidelity, lifelong monogamy, and,
above all, male authority and female fealty were essential to salvation.
As he told the Indians, "In France women do not rule their husbands."
11 Within months Le Jeune had converted a handful of these
"heathens." Ten years later some had started to beat women.

How many women have colonialism and Christianity tethered? It's

impossible to say. But the Igbo Women's War was no fluke of

history. As one scientist summed up the situation, 'The penetration of

Western colonialism, and with it Western practices and attitudes
regarding women, has so widely influenced women's roles in
aboriginal societies as to depress women's status almost everywhere in
the world." 12

Power Plays

Knowing, then, that women have indeed been powerful in many

traditional societies around the world, what can we infer about life in
Africa during our long nomadic prehistoric past—millennia before
European guns and gospels skewed power relations between men and
women? We have two ways of gaining insight: by examining daily life
in modern traditional societies and by dissecting power relations
among our close relatives, the apes. Let's begin with the power plays of
people. 13

Anthropologists generally agree that power (the ability to influence or

persuade, as opposed to authority, formal institutionalized command)
regularly resides with those who control valued goods or services and
have the right to distribute this wealth outside the home.

The gift. If you own the land, rent the land, give away the land, or
distribute resources on the land, like water holes or fishing rights, you
have power. If you have a special service, like doctoring, or a
connection with the spirit world that others need, you have power. If
you kill a giraffe and give away the meat or make baskets, beads,
blankets, or other products for trade, you can make friends—alliances
that bring economic ties, prestige, and power. So who collects what,
who owns what, and who gives, rents, sells, or trades what to whom
matters in the power dance between the sexes. 14

The traditional north Alaskan Inuit (or Eskimos) offer a good example
of this direct relationship between economic resources and social
control. In the barren north, where only moss and grasses appear
above the permafrost for much of the year, there were no plants to
gather. As a result, women traditionally did not leave home for work as
gatherers or bring back valuable goods to trade. Men did

all the hunting. Men left the house to chase seals or whales throughout
the winter months and fished or hunted caribou during the long Arctic
summer days. Men brought home the blubber for the candle oil, the
skins for parkas, trousers, shirts, and shoes, sinew for cord, bone for
ornaments and tools, and every scrap of food. Women depended on
these supplies. Eskimo men depended on their wives to tan the hides,
smoke the meat, and make all the heavy clothing. So the sexes needed
each other to survive.

But men had access to the fundamental resources. And Eskimo girls
realized early in life that the way to succeed was to "marry well." 15
Young women had no other access to power.

Traditional !Kung Bushmen women of the Kalahari Desert, on the

other hand, were far more economically powerful. And they did not
marry as a career. As you know, when anthropologists first recorded
their lifeways in the 1960s, women commuted to work and came home
with much of the evening meal. !Kung women had economic power;
they also had a voice. But !Kung wives, unlike their husbands, did not
distribute their food within the larger social group.

This distinction is important. When men returned from a successful

hunting trip, they divided the precious meat according to rules as well
as with fanfare. The owner of the arrow that killed the animal got the
prestigious task of distributing the catch. The man who first saw the
beast got certain choice sections, those who tracked it got others, and
so forth. Then each hunter in turn gave steaks and ribs and organ
meats to his family and other kin. These were "investments," however,
not offerings. !Kung hunters expect to be reimbursed. For when the
hunter gave his neighbors these hunks of meat, he garnered honor and
obligations—power. And although women "had a formidable degree of
autonomy," both !Kung men and women thought that men were
slightly more influential than their wives. 16

"It's better to give than to receive," the adage goes. The !Kung and
many other peoples would agree. Those who hold the "purse strings"
have substantial social power—an economic formula that suggests that
ancestral women had a good deal of social pull.

But power, of course, is not always a matter of economics. Can anyone

be sure, for example, that economically powerful women or men are
persuasive in the bedroom too? It ain't necessarily so.

Inuit women may marry well to get ahead, but there's no saying these
Eskimo wives feel subordinate to their husbands. And who's to know
whether the farmer who presides at the dinner table dominates private
conversations with his wife as well. In fact, in peasant societies today
where men monopolize all the positions of rank and authority and
women tend to act deferentially toward men in public, women have a
great deal of informal influence. Despite men's strutting and public
posturing in these cultures, anthropologist Susan Rogers reports,
neither sex actually thinks men rule women. She concludes that the
sexes sustain a rough balance of power, that male dominance is a
myth. 17

So economics undoubtedly played an important role in the power

relations of men and women millennia ago. But the sexes were actually
engaged in a much more complicated duel.

In an effort to unravel this subtle power dynamic between women and

men, Martin Whyte mined the Human Relations Area File, a modern
data bank that records information on over eight hundred societies. 18
From this file and from other ethnographic reports, he compiled a
study group of ninety-three preindustrial peoples: one-third were
nomadic hunter-gatherers; one-third were peasant farmers; one-third
were peoples who herded and/or gardened for a living. Societies
ranged from the Babylonians living around 1750 B.C. to present-day
traditional cultures. Most had been studied by anthropologists since
a.d. 1800.

Whyte then culled from these data the answers to a number of

questions about each culture: What were the sexes of the gods? Which
sex received more-elaborate burial ceremonies? Who were the local
political leaders? Who contributed what to the dinner table? Who had
the final authority to discipline the children? Who arranged the
marriages? Who inherited valuable property? Which gender had the
higher sex drive? Did people believe women were

inferior to men? He cross-correlated these and many other variables in

order to establish the status of women in societies around the world.

Whyte's findings confirm some widely held beliefs. 19

There was no society in which women dominated men in most spheres

of social life. Myths of Amazon women, tales of matriarchs who ruled
with a velvet fist, were just that—fiction. In 67 percent of all cultures
(mainly agricultural peoples), men appeared to control women in most
circles of activity. In a fair number of societies (30 percent) men and
women appeared to be roughly equal—particularly among gardeners
and hunting-gathering peoples. And in 50 percent of all these cultures,
women had much more informal influence than societal rules
accorded them.

Whyte uncovered an even more important fact: there was no single

constellation of cross-cultural factors that together added up to the
status of women. Instead, each society revealed a series of pluses and
minuses. In some cultures women made an enormous economic
contribution but had less power over their marital and sex lives. In
others they could divorce easily but had little say in religious matters
or held no formal political offices. Even where women owned valuable
property and had considerable economic power, they did not
necessarily have extensive political rights or religious sway. In short,
power in one sector of society did not translate into power in the next.

This fact is nowhere more obvious than in the United States. In 1920
women won the right to vote; their political influence increased. But
they remained second-class citizens on the job. Today women's power
in the work force is rising; many are highly educated as well. At home,
though, married working women still do the vast majority of the
cooking, washing, and cleaning up. 20 Because Americans assume that
status is a single phenomenon, we cannot understand why working
women still do most of the housework. But one's status in one sector of
society does not necessarily affect one's position in another.

Whyte established that there is no such thing as the status of women—

or of men. Instead, the power game between the sexes is like a crystal
ball; turn the sphere a little, and it casts a whole new

light. Hence ancestral women may have been economically powerful

and have had a great deal of informal influence, yet not necessarily
have been leaders of the group.

What else can a study of traditional peoples say about women, men,
and power in the past? Well, class, race, age, sex appeal,
accomplishments, and kinship ties also contribute to the mosaic we
call power.

Under certain circumstances the most insipid member of a higher

class or dominant ethnic group can reign over a smarter, more
dynamic person of a lower station. And although we are inclined to
make sweeping judgments about the miserable status of women in
Asia, an elderly Chinese or Japanese woman can be just as dictatorial
as any man. In many societies age counts. So do sex appeal, wit, and
charm. A barmaid can rule a businessman with sex; a cartoonist can
puncture a politician with pen and ink; a student may beguile her
vastly better-educated teacher with a gaze.

Kinship also plays a part in who runs whom. In patrilineal societies,

where men regularly own the land and children mark their descent
from father, women tend to have little formal power in most sectors of
society. On the other hand, women in matrilineal societies own more
property and this gives them much more influence in the community
as a whole.

Last, the genders derive power from their society's symbolic world. As
a culture evolves, it develops a "sexual template" or social script for
how the genders are to behave, as well as beliefs about the powers of
each sex. 21 These scripts people carry in their minds. Mbuti pygmies
of Zaire, for example, think women are powerful because only women
give birth. The Mehinaku of Amazonia and many other people bestow
power on menstrual blood; touch it, and you get sick. Westerners have
immortalized women's power to seduce men in their fable of Adam,
Eve, the serpent, and the apple. Ultimately what a society designates
as symbolically powerful becomes just that.

Power, then, is a composite of many forces that work together to make

one man or woman more influential than the next.

What, then, of Twiggy, George, 1470, and the other hominids

discussed in the last chapter who left their bones beside a blue-green
lake at Olduvai two million years ago? Were those men and women
social equals?

Undoubtedly these early "people" did not have class or ethnic

distinctions. It is also unlikely that they had a cultural life rich with
symbolic associations of power. But we can say a few things with some
degree of certainty about Twiggy and her companions. They did not
live like the Inuit, whose men collected all of the food and whose
women stayed at home. There was no home. Twiggy was not a farmer's
daughter either. Instead, she was nomadic. No one stayed in camp.
And women worked.

Most important, Twiggy and her friends ate meat. And as I have
maintained, hunting and scavenging are not logical pastimes for
pregnant women or mothers with small children. So Twiggy probably
let her lover collect the meat, the sinew and the marrow from
dangerous beasts, while she gathered fruit, vegetables, seeds, and
small game with her female friends. In this way Twiggy made an
enormous contribution to the evening meal. If so, she was
economically powerful, as traditional !Kung women were and still are.
The more sexually active and charismatic females in Twiggy's world
were probably more powerful as well.

But how did Twiggy live? Who actually bossed whom?

Not only do traditional cultures give us a clue; so do other species. In

fact, we can glean a great deal of insight into Twiggy's daily power
plays by examining a fascinating colony of chimpanzees in the Arn-
hem Zoo, in Holland. 22 To these chimps, maneuvering for rank and
power is the spice of daily life.

Chimpanzee Politics

In 1971 more than a dozen chimps were introduced to their new

residence at the zoo. At night they slept in separate indoor cages; then
after breakfast the chimps were free to enter a two-acre outdoor yard.
It was surrounded by a moat and a high wall in the rear. About fifty
oak and beech trees, each cloaked in electric fencing, loomed
inaccessibly above them. Rocks, tree trunks, and a few dead oaks for

climbing spread across the pen. Here the chimps engaged in all of
their political power plays—after the great escape.

On opening morning the chimps inspected their outdoor acreage inch

by inch. That afternoon, after the last of the anthropologists,
zookeepers, and trainers had departed, they staged their getaway.
Some of them wedged a five-meter tree limb against the back wall.
Then several chimps quietly scaled the fortress. Reportedly a few even
helped the less surefooted with their climbing. Then they all
descended nearby trees and availed themselves of the park's facilities.
Big Mama, the oldest female of the group, made a beeline for the zoo
cafeteria. Here she helped herself to a bottle of chocolate milk and
settled among the patrons.

Since these chimps were enticed back into their cages, they have
engaged in perpetual power struggles among themselves—maneuvers
that shed light on Twiggy's life in ancient times and on the nature of
modern human power plays.

Male chimps negotiate regularly for rank. A male begins his

"intimidation display" by puffing up his hair, hooting, and swaying
from side to side or stamping, often holding a rock or stick in his hand.
Then he dashes past his rival, pounds the ground, and crows. This
ritual is normally enough to persuade his adversary to defer. This
deferential retreat is a distinctive gesture; the subordinate emits a
short sequence of panting grunts as he bows deeply to his superior or
crouches with his hair flat against his body to look small.

Aggressors enlist allies too. At the beginning of this threat display, the
attacker often tries to get a companion to back him up, holding out a
hand, palm up, toward a potential friend—inviting him to side with
him. If he succeeds in recruiting a supporter, he may charge his
opponent, pelting him with stones, screaming, pummeling him with
fists, and biting him on the hands, feet, or head. But he also keeps an
eye on his ally. If his deputy seems to waver in his allegiance, the
aggressor renews his begging gestures to him.

'There is no such thing as a free lunch/' they say, and it's just as true of
chimpanzee politicians as of human ones. When one chimp backs up
another, he expects his favor to be returned. In fact, chimps

seem to feel obliged, rousing themselves from a perfectly peaceful doze

to stand near an argument or join the fray. Alliances count. On one
occasion at Arnhem, the male who was second in command groomed
one female after the next, patting each and playing with her children.
These rounds completed, he immediately threatened the number one
male. Had he bribed these females to support his cause? Probably.
Like politicians who kiss babies and speak out on women's issues,
male chimps cultivate female friends.

Some male coalitions last for years; many more last only minutes;
status-hungry male chimps make fickle friends. But when an
individual gets into another scrape, he "pulls strings/' hollering until
allies come to root or join the brawl. Sometimes four or five males
participate in the melee, a huge knot of yelling, tumbling, gouging
apes.

Perhaps when Twiggy and her hominid comrades rested at midday, a

male flaunted his high status, huffing, hooing, and swaying
threateningly until a subordinate bowed to him. Occasionally fights
must have broken out. And males probably cultivated Twiggy for her
support and that of her female friends.

Networking

Curiously, male and female chimps at Arnhem arrange themselves in

quite different power structures, a dissimilarity that could well be true
of humans and may also hark back to Twiggy's times.

Male chimps are connected in a web of hierarchical intrigues with

friends and enemies that add up to a flexible dominance ladder with
one male at the top. These ranks are clearly demarcated at any one
moment. But as a male wins more allies and more skirmishes, the
dominance ladder slowly changes. Finally a series of confrontations or
a single vicious fight swings the balance and a new individual emerges
as king of the male hierarchy.

This ruler has an important job—sheriff. He steps into a brawl and

pulls the adversaries from one another. And he is expected to be a
nonpartisan referee. When this alpha male keeps fights to a minimum
his chimp underlings respect him, support him, even pay him homage.
They bow to him, plunging their heads and upper bodies rapidly and
repeatedly. They kiss his hands, feet, neck, and

chest. They lower themselves to make sure they are beneath him. And
they follow him in an entourage. But if the leader fails to maintain
harmony, his inferiors shift their allegiance, and the hierarchy slowly
changes until peace is reached. Subordinates create the chief.

Female chimps do not establish this kind of status ladder. They form
cliques instead—laterally connected subgroups of individuals who care
for one another's infants and protect and nurture each other in times
of social chaos. Females are less aggressive, less dominance oriented,
and this network can remain stable—and relatively egalitarian—for
years. Moreover, the most dominant female generally acquires this
position by sheer personality, charisma, if you will, as well as by age,
rather than by intimidation.

Female chimps quarrel, though, and, like males, they use their allies to
settle scores. On one occasion a threatened female called on a male
friend for help. Amid high-pitched "indignant" barks, she pointed with
her whole hand (rather than a finger) toward the assailant, at the same
time kissing and patting her male ally. When her pleas became more
insistent, her male friend counterattacked the antagonist while the
female stood by and watched approvingly.

Do human males naturally tend to form hierarchal ranks and then

jockey for better positions, whereas females form more-egalitarian,
stable cliques? This would be hard to prove. But if Twiggy was
anything like the female chimps at Arnhem, she had a network of
devoted friends. She also had embittered foes. And she could nurse a
grudge for years.

Twiggy's most powerful role may have been as group arbiter, however.
At Arnhem, Big Mama played this part. She broke up arguments
between juveniles just by standing near them, barking, and waving her
arms. It was always Big Mama who coaxed the vanquished from the
dead tree in the center of the enclosure. And after any battle the loser
always fled whimpering to her side. As time went by, Big Mama
became the safety zone, the police, the judge, and jury.

Other females at Arnhem acted as mediators too. Once during a male's

"bluff display," a female strolled up to him, peeled his fingers from
around his rock, and walked away with it. When the male

found a new rock, she took it away too; this confiscation process
occurred six times in a row. Other mediators behaved differently.
Some simply jabbed the victor's side with a hand, driving him until he
sat down beside his enemy and began the grooming ceremony.

This grooming ritual has a pattern, and it suggests perhaps the single
most important thing about power relations in our past: peacemaking
was a staple of daily life. Within minutes after a brawl, or hours or
even days later, chimp enemies walk up to one another, grunt softly,
shake hands, hug, kiss one another on the lips, and gaze deeply into
one another's eyes. Then they sit, lick one another's wounds, and
groom each other. Chimp rivals also spend inordinate amounts of
energy suppressing their animosity, grooming one another particularly
furiously when they are very tense.

Chimps and all other primates work hard to mollify their companions.
Violence is the exception; placating is the rule—as it must have been
among our ancestors of Twiggy's day.
From the perpetual power struggles at the Arnhem Zoo, primatolo-gist
Franz De Waal established several things about power among these
apes, principles that probably applied to our ancestors on the
grasslands of Africa millennia ago and that have been carried across
time to modern humankind.

First of all, power shifts. Ranks are formalized, but animals are part of
a pliable network of relationships. Moreover, the ability to rule does
not depend on strength, size, speed, agility, or aggressiveness; it
depends on wits, on whom you know, and how you pay your social
debts. Last, power can be either formal or informal. As supporters and
arbiters, females are major players in the power game; under the right
set of circumstances even a female can reign.

In fact, when visitors asked De Waal which were more powerful, male
or female chimps, he shrugged and explained it thus. If you look at
who greets whom, males dominate females 100 percent of the time. If
you count who wins aggressive interactions, males win 80 percent of
the time. But if you measure who takes food away from whom or who
sits in the best spots, females win 80 percent of the time. And to
emphasize the complexity of power, De Waal liked to

add, "Nikkie (male) is the highest-ranking ape but he is completely

dependent on Yeroen (male). Luit (male) is individually the most
powerful. But when it comes to who can push others aside then Mama
(female) is the boss/' 23

De Wall confirmed the two things that anthropologists have observed

in human cultures: status is not a single, monolithic quality measured
in a single way; and male dominance, if it implies power over females
in every sphere of life, is a myth.

A final factor may have contributed to Twiggy's power—her family

status. In several primate species, such as baboons, groups of related
females usually stick together, while the males often switch from troop
to troop. Within each troop, one "matriline" tends to dominate the
next, and so forth down the line, a relatively stable hierarchy of
dynasties, an "old girls" network. 24 Hence a juvenile of a high-
ranking female clan can often dominate a mature female from a less
prestigious family.

Moreover, children often assume their mother's rank. Among wild

chimps at Gombe, where females are not organized into matri-lines
but form cliques instead, the children of the sovereign female, Flo,
grew up to become influential in the community, whereas the offspring
of a submissive peer became subservient adults.

Gender Relations at Ancient Olduvai

Power relations in traditional human cultures and politics among

chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, certainly suggest how our
ancestors could have lived and jockeyed among themselves for status
at Olduvai Gorge some two million years ago.

Twiggy's first memory may have been that of looking across the
waving grass as she rode on her mother's hip. By the time she was
three or four, she knew where the cashews grew and how to dig for
roots. She probably played at water holes as her mother collected crabs
and lolled below the fig trees when grown-ups gathered blossoms or
sweet fruit. If her mother was powerful, like Big Mama, Twiggy
probably rested in the shady spots. If mother's lover was a

good scavenger, she dined on tongue and other delicacies of

wildebeest. And maybe when all lined up to slurp water trickling from
a rock, Twiggy went first.

Whether these ancestors traveled in groups of related males or related

females, we will never know. But every morning some ten to fifty
members of Twiggy's band must have awakened, chattered, drunk,
relieved themselves, and abandoned their night nests to wander along
the lake or out into the grass. Sometimes a few males split off to scout
or scavenge and return later in the day. Then they all settled in early
evening to share their food and sleep in a clump of fig trees, on a
grassy cliff, or in a dried-up streambed on the ground. The next
morning they began again.
As the days passed, Twiggy probably became used to seeing other
males and females bow and scrape to her mother as they marched
along. When she grew older, she probably tagged along beside her
older sister, formed a clique with other girls, and spent her time
grooming them, playing tag and tickle, and chasing boys. Undoubtedly
Twiggy knew her place in the social network and grinned, bowed, and
kissed the hands and feet of her superiors. When Twiggy got into
battles with other children, her mother (or father) defended her and
she won. And by wits and charm, Twiggy made friends with boys, then
coaxed them into sharing bits of meat.

After Twiggy reached puberty, she must have formed a pair-bond with
a special friend. Maybe he was someone from a different group she
met when her band made its annual pilgrimage in the dry season to
camp beside the blue-green lake. Together Twiggy and her lover
walked through the open plains; together they shared their food and
bore a child. If the partnership became acrimonious, she probably
waited until her infant had stopped suckling, then picked up her
digging stick and pouch and joined a neighboring band. Economic
autonomy enabled Twiggy to leave her mate as soon as her infant was
on his feet.

She may have been powerful in other aspects of daily life as well. If
Twiggy consistently remembered where to find honey and prized
vegetables, she was admired. Perhaps she was an arbiter, too, taking
rocks and sticks from her husband's hand as he swayed and shouted at
a rival. Undoubtedly she had one or two girlfriends who always

defended her in a quarrel. And if Twiggy was charismatic, bright,

respected, and clever at keeping friends, she could well have become a
leader of the group. Among primates the law of the jungle is not
strength but brains.

These brains soon harnessed fire and invented new tools and weapons.
Then like a rocket our ancestors shot into "almost human" social life.

12
Almost Human

Genesis ol Kinship ana the Teenager

It is indeed a desirable thing to be well descended, but the glory

belongs to

our ancestors.

— Plutarch, Morals

ire.

Ever since our ancestors descended from the trees, they must have fled
to lakes and streams when volcanoes disgorged balls of molten rock or
lightning licked the prairie and flame spread across the grass. While
the plains still smoldered, they probably picked their way back
through the embers to collect hares, lizards, fallen bee's nests, and
seeds, then gorged on the roasted food.

At the mouths of caves, where the dung of owls, bats, saber-toothed

tigers, and other cave dwellers collected in rich deposits, the embers
may have flickered on for days or even weeks, and gradually ancients
learned to sleep beside these coals, even to feed the thirsty flame with
dried branches until passing game, the promise of distant flowering
fruit trees, or lack of water moved a tiny band to abandon the warm,
protective glow.

Fire was humankind's companion—an enemy when it raged, a

friend when it subsided. But when our ancestors first learned to

control flame, to carry embers in a baboon skull or wrapped in fleshy
leaves, fire became their greatest strength. With fire they could harden
wood to make more-deadly spears. With burning moss they could
smoke out rodents from their burrows or drive rabbits toward their
snares. With hearths they could ward off stealthy nighttime predators
from carcasses they had half consumed. And with burning branches
they could drive hyenas from their lairs, then usurp these cave homes
and sleep within the halo of the flame. Now injured band members,
older men and women, pregnant females, and small children could
stay in camp. There was a camp. No longer servants of the sun, our
ancestors could stoke the embers and lounge about in morning, mend
their tools at dusk, and reenact the day's events late into the night.

This innovation was but part of the advances our ancestors had made
by a million years ago—ushering in vast changes in human sexuality as
well.

We may never know exactly when humankind first began to control

flame. Anthropologists certainly do not agree. 1 But what could be the
oldest evidence of campfires comes from the Swartkrans cave, in
South Africa, where anthropologists C. K. Brain and Andrew Sillen
recently collected 270 charred bits of ancient animal bones. 2

These fossils, they report, had been burned at between 200 and 800
degrees centigrade. This is within the temperature range created today
by a campfire of stinkwood branches. Someone may have collected
dead limbs from the many white stinkwood trees that have covered
this area for eons and enjoyed fire about one to one and a half million
years ago. And once our ancestors began to make camp-fires, they
built them over and over again. More than twenty separate levels of
fire-burned debris at Swartkrans suggest our ancient love of flame.

What "people" warmed their hands and burned these bones at the
Swartkrans cave?

Primitive Australopithecus robustus creatures, who died out about a

million years ago, left parts of their skeletons here among the debris.
But Homo erectus individuals lived here, too. And Brain

thinks these more advanced hominids fed these ancient flames. Why?
Because Homo erectus hominids were far more intelligent and well on
their way toward humanity.

These "people" appear in the fossil record at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,

at Koobi Fora, Kenya, and in the Omo River valley in southern
Ethiopia by 1.8 million years ago. But the most telling early Homo
erectus site is Nariokotome III. 3

Here, in arid sediments near the western shore of Lake Turkana,

Kenya, a youth died in a marsh almost 1.6 million years ago. The
robustness of the face and shape of the hips indicate that the creature
was most likely a boy. 4 He was about twelve years old and somewhat
less than five feet six inches tall the day he passed away; had he lived,
he would have grown to be about six feet. His hands, arms, hips, and
legs were very much like ours. His chest was more rounded than the
chest of modern people, and he had one more lumbar vertabra. But if
this young man had walked, fully clothed, down your street on
Halloween wearing a mask, you would not have noticed him at all.

Had he removed the disguise, you would have fled. His rugged,
protruding jaw and huge teeth, the heavy brow ridges above his eyes,
his sloping flattened forehead, his thick skull, and his bulging neck
muscles would have stunned even the corner cop. Nevertheless, the
child was reasonably smart. He had a brain volume of 900 cubic
centimeters, much larger than that of Twiggy or her australopithe-cine
contemporaries and just below the range of 1,000 to 2,000 of modern
men and women. Later Homo erectus skulls show even larger cranial
capacities—reaching as high as 1,300 cubic centimeters.

Interestingly, chimpanzees like to smoke cigarettes, and they are

adroit at lighting a match and blowing out the flame. 5 So it is likely
that Homo erectus, with a brain a great deal bigger than that of
chimps, understood how to manage fire and fanned flames at Swartk-
rans cave over a million years ago. With their advanced "thinking
caps," these creative individuals would also start to build our modern
human social and sexual world.

Foremost, Homo erectus developed sophisticated tools.

While former residents of the Swartkrans cave had made simple

Oldowan pebble tools—no more than waterworn rocks with a few

edges whacked off to make a sharpened edge—ingenious Homo
erectus people had begun to separate delicate flakes from larger
stones. They probably used these small flakes to cut, slice, scrape, or
dig. More impressive, however, were their large, six- to seven-inch
stone hand axes, called Acheulean hand axes because they were first
discovered in St. Acheul, France. With a rounded butt end and careful
flaking along both edges to make a tapered point, these tools looked
like large almonds, pears, or teardrops of stone.

Like golf balls in a water trap, these hand axes have been found strewn
along ancient streams and rivers, on channel bars, at lake margins, in
swamps and bogs and marshes across South and East Africa, as well as
along watercourses in Europe, India, and Indonesia. So although some
must have been used to dig for vegetables that grew along the banks, it
has long been thought that early Homo erectus peoples used these
massive streamlined tools mainly to skin and disarticulate carcasses at
the shore, then chop meat from bone, cut sinew, and crack bones for
marrow.

This may well have been the fate of a baby hippo whose remains were
found at Lake Turkana, in what had been a shallow, muddy lake some
1.5 million years ago. Acheulean hand axes lay nearby. And seven
footprints of a Homo erectus individual were imprinted nearby in the
mud. 6 Perhaps the individual, who stood about five and a half feet tall
and weighed some 120 pounds, had waded silently into the water and
slain the wallowing beast.

Fire. Fancy tools. Hunting large animals. Anthropologists now think

these ancestors also had home bases, campsites they returned to for
days or weeks. 7 In short, Homo erectus men and women had started
to perfect the basic elements of the hunting-gathering way of life. With
these developments, our fundamental human style of life and sex and
love would soon emerge. Our expanding brain created a complication,
however, that sped our journey along that path.

Born Too Young

Since the early 1960s, anthropologists have reasoned that at some

point in hominid evolution the brain became so large in proportion
to the mother's pelvic birth canal that a woman began to have
difficulty bearing her large-brained young. In short, with its growing
head, it couldn't get out. This tight squeeze is known as the obstetrical
dilemma. 8 Nature's solution: to bear young at an earlier (smaller)
stage of development and extend fetal brain development into
postnatal life. As Ashley Montagu summed it up, "If he weren't born
when he is, he wouldn't be born at all." 10

Indeed, we are born too soon; the human newborn is really just an
embryo. All of the primates bear immature (altricial) young, and the
degree of altriciality (immaturity) increases from monkeys to apes to
humans. But human babies are born even more immature than those
of our closest relatives, a characteristic known as secondary altriciality.
9 Not for six to nine months does the human infant acquire the
chemical responses of the liver, kidneys, immune system, and
digestive tract, the motor reactions, or the brain development
displayed by other primates shortly after birth.

Scientists estimate that our ancestors began to bear exceedingly

immature helpless babies when the brain reached an adult cranial
capacity of 700 cubic centimeters—about a million years ago, among
Homo erectus people. 12

What an impact this single adaptation had on human patterns of

marriage, sex, and love. Foremost, these helpless young must have
dramatically increased the "reproductive burden" of Homo erectus
females, further stimulating selection for infatuation, attachment, and
monogamy. Now a steady consort was even more critical to the
survival of the helpless child. 13

Anthropologist Wenda Trevathan thinks that the complications of this

tight squeeze at birth also stimulated women's first specialized
occupation—midwifery. In her book Human Birth: An Evolutionary
Perspective, Trevathan looks at human parturition from the viewpoint
of an animal behaviorist. She proposes, for example, that when a
human mother strokes her newborn, this gesture stems not just from a
psychological need to bond but also from the mammalian practice of
licking one's young to stimulate breathing and other bodily functions.
Because human newborns are covered with a

creamy fluid known as the vernix caseosa, perhaps new mothers also
evolved their patting habit to rub in this fatty gel, lubricating the skin,
protecting the infant from viruses and bacteria. Trevathan also notes
that, regardless of their "handedness," new mothers hold their infants
in the left arm—directly over the heart, probably because the heartbeat
soothes the child.

More important to our story, Trevathan thinks that by Homo erectus

times birthing had become so difficult that women needed a helper to
"catch" the baby. Thus the human tradition of midwifery emerged.
Perhaps these helpers became bonded to the newborn, too, widening
the circle of adults who felt responsible for the child. 14

Our Homo erectus ancestors spawned another monstrous burden —

the teenager. From characteristics of ancient teeth, anthropologists
have surmised how fast our ancestors grew up. It appears that at some
point between a million and 200,000 years ago the human maturation
process slowed down; not only did women now bear exceedingly
helpless babies, but childhood also became extended. 15

Hail the origin of teenage, another hallmark of the human animal,

another distinct divergence from our relatives, the apes. A chimpanzee
has an infancy quite similar to that of people in hunting-gathering
societies—about four years. But among chimps the first molar tooth
emerges at about age three, and chimps reach puberty at about ten.
Our human first molar doesn't appear until age six. And girls in
hunting-gathering societies often do not reach menarche until age
sixteen or seventeen; boys go through a prolonged adolescence too. In
fact, humans do not stop growing physically until about age twenty.

Even more remarkable, human parents continue to provide food and

shelter for their teenagers. After a chimp mother has weaned her
infant, the youngster feeds itself and builds its own nest every night.
The juvenile chimp still stays near its mother much of the time. But
once an ape infant has stopped suckling, the mother no longer feeds or
shelters her offspring. Not so humankind. At five the human child can
barely dig a root; even the most sophisticated youngster in a hunting-
gathering society could not forage and survive until late

teenage. So human parents continue to rear their offspring some ten to

twelve years after these children have been weaned. 16

Human childhood thus became almost twice as long as that of chimps

and other primate.

Why did the human maturation process became so extended? To gain

time, I think—time in childhood to learn about an increasingly
complex world. Boys needed to learn where to quarry flint and other
stones, how to hit these rocks at the precise angle to remove a flake
and fashion their weapons to be just right for throwing. Boys had to
watch the animals, learn when and where the females bore their
young, which creatures led the herd, how the winds and seasons
changed, which prey to track, how to track, where to surround and fell
their quarry, and how to cut the game and divide the spoils.

Girls had even more to learn: how to carry flame, where the low-lying
berry bushes grew, what bogs to avoid, where to find birds' eggs, what
the life cycles of hundreds of different plants were, where small
animals burrowed or reptiles sunned, and which herbs were best for
colds, sore throats, or fevers. All this took time, trial, error, and
intelligence. Perhaps the young also had to commit to memory long
tales, stories like morality plays that taught them about the weather
and the habits of the plants and animals around them.

Equally important, they had to learn the nuances of the mating game.
With the evolution of teenage came all of those extra years to
experiment at courting, sex, and love—crucial parts of life in a social
world where men and women needed to pair up to share their food
and raise their children as a team.

Brotherly Love

As the brain expanded and women began to bear helpless young with a
long teenage, pressures on parents must have mounted even more—
stimulating the evolution of another human hallmark: kinship.

A great many animals, including all of the higher primates, recognize

biological kin and tend to favor aunts, nephews, and even more

distant blood relatives. So the roots of human kinship lie deep in our
mammalian past. But when our ancestors began to produce helpless
young that took almost twenty years to mature, these new pressures
must have hastened the evolution of one of humankind's greatest
social inventions: formal relatives with specific roles—the glue of
traditional human social life.

One might argue that with the origin of dependent teenagers, parents
became obliged to remain together longer in order to provide for their
adolescent young. But as I pointed out in chapter 5, divorces tend to
cluster around the fourth year of marriage—about the duration of
human infancy. Nowhere in the world do people characteristically
remain together to raise their young through their teenage years, then
systematically depart.

Since our ancestors did not adopt the reproductive strategy of

extending their partnerships to rear their adolescents, nature took a
creative tack: human kinship evolved. What an ingenious twist, a web
of related and unrelated individuals locked in a formal network of ties
and obligations, an eternal unbreakable alliance dedicated to
nurturing their mutual offspring, their shared DNA. How did this
come about; what does it have to do with the evolution of marriage,
adultery, and divorce?

The nature of the first human kin groups and the evolution of our
unique kinship systems are subjects of some of the oldest arguments
in anthropology. Basic to the debate is the question: which came first,
matriliny or patriliny; did our ancestors trace their heritage through
mother or through father? I review this controversy in chapter 15. For
now I want to make only one simple point.

Among common chimpanzees, related males tend to remain together

to defend their community, whereas females typically leave the group
at puberty to seek mates elsewhere; hence brothers live together in
adulthood, and sisters tend to disperse. Here are the seeds of patriliny,
the kinship system based on male ties. Among savanna baboons the
reverse is true. Groups of related females travel as a unit, whereas
males depart for other troops as they mature—the kernal of matriliny.
My point: because kinship structure varies

among primates, it is impossible to make an informed guess about the

kin networks of these early hominid bands.

With one exception. As I have proposed, I think ancestral males and

females began to bond and move through the plains together almost as
soon as they descended from the trees, some four million years ago.
Now I can add that couples were beginning to travel within a wider
group whose members were welded together through formal kinship
ties.

How vague visceral notions of kinship actually evolved into concrete

rules is open to speculation. As a child, an ancient girl probably
expected her mother's special friend to share his meat, protect her,
and hold her when she cried. With him she had a specific tie that
would become ''daughter-father." She was obliged to help care for her
younger male sibling, a defined obligation that would evolve into
"sister-brother." And some females who were more often in the
vicinity of mother, she would eventually know as "aunts."

With the escalation of big-game hunting, the intensified division of

labor between the sexes and the vicissitudes of raising helpless babies
through a long teenage, early people began to see categories of
individuals, each with distinct obligations, duties, and unspoken social
roles. And with the evolution of kinship systems, our ancestors must
have begun to define who was permitted to mate with whom. As you
will see in the next chapter, rules of sexuality emerged.

Out of Africa

Our Homo erectus ancestors also began to spread across the globe.
Some anthropologists think early hominids moved into Europe as
early as two million years ago. 17 At a few sites north of the
Mediterranean Sea are found tools dating to possibly a million years
ago. By this time our forebears had also unquestionably moved
eastward into Java. By some 500,000 years ago they had reached
northern China too. In fact, their skulls, their bones, and tools are
found at sites across Eurasia dating to about half a million years ago.

Why our ancestors left Africa, we do not know. Perhaps because

they could. By a million years ago the earth's temperature had taken
another dramatic plunge. To the north, in Europe and Asia, snow piled
in the high country during the longer colder winters, and less snow
melted during the chilly summer days and nights. Century upon
century, ice sheets grew into mile-high glacial crusts. Then gravity
pulled these ice fortresses from the mountain peaks, carving valleys,
moving rocks, felling trees, extending the bitter weather to the south.
Each cold spasm lasted several thousand years.

With each bout of freezing weather, more and more of the ocean's
water became locked in ice. So almost imperceptibly the sea level
dropped some four hundred feet, exposing wide land bridges,
highways to the north.

Not only could our ancestors now walk north; maybe they had to. As
they grew more efficient at hunting game, they probably needed to
look farther afield for prey. 18 Moreover, with fiery torches with which
to hunt and protect themselves, as well as efficient tools with which to
butcher game, they could probably collect more meat— enabling more
children to survive. So when a tiny band appeared at the Swartkrans
cave, another had already moved in, or the fig groves and crabbing
pools were picked clean when a band arrived. Last, skirmishes with
neighbors or quarrels among themselves might have driven splinter
groups or whole communities out of their native lands.

Whatever the reasons for the migration, our ancestors gradually

explored new river valleys and new trails that led them out of Africa.
Moving no more than ten miles every generation, they would have
reached Beijing in less than twenty thousand years.
They did just that.

The biggest cache of evidence is at Dragon Bone Hill, a site about

thirty miles from Beijing, well known to anthropologists as
Zhoukoudian. Here Chinese fossil hunters had been collecting ancient
bones for centuries, treasures they sold to local chemists who ground
the fragments into a sour-tasting powder that they peddled as
medicinal elixirs. After hearing of these expeditions, Canadian
anatomist Davidson Black launched his own pilgrimage in 1927.

Since then, over a dozen skulls, some 150 teeth, and parts of over forty
Homo erectus individuals have been unearthed at Dragon Bone

Hill —along with the bones of wild pigs, elephants, rhinos, horses, and
hundreds of stone tools. Curiously, some of the hominid skulls had
been smashed at the base, as if the brains had been extracted.

Cannibals?

This has been the standard explanation. Homo erectus men and
women camped here, perhaps in the autumn when the mammoths and
mastodons, rhinos, deer, and ancient horses lumbered past their
campsites heading south to warmer, wetter weather. Here some Homo
erectus people fed on others some 500,000 years ago—either as a
ritual of reverence for dead friends or to desecrate their enemies. 19

While some of our forebears followed reindeer, musk ox, bison, giant
elk, and other massive beasts into northern China, others trickled
south to Java where they left their remains along the steamy Solo
River some 500,000 years ago. Still more ate near the Sea of Galilee
around 700,000. And others camped and left their garbage in
Hungary, France, England, Wales, and Spain at various times between
400,000 and 200,000 years ago. 20

What, then, of sex, love, and life among the men and women who
stalked hippos in Lake Turkana, those who ate and slept at
Zhoukoudian, and all the other ancients who left their bones, tools,
and refuse along the sand dunes of Algeria, the tundras of Spain, the
plains of Hungary, the steppes of Russia, the forests of England, and
the jungles of Java between 1.6 million and 200,000 years ago?

Men probably valued women for their work as gatherers and mothers.
These women must have known every stand of yarrow, every honey
tree, the tiniest berry shrub, every site where water dribbled from a
rock, and every hillock, cave, and trail for over a hundred miles around
them—even in plains as seemingly uniform as the Pacific Ocean. On
most mornings women must have left camp carrying their infants in
skin pouches on their backs. Every evening they returned with nuts,
berries, firewood, and often information concerning the whereabouts
of herds, water, enemies, and relatives. Men counted on their women
to survive.

Women must have appreciated men for their bravery in the hunt,

for their gifts of steaks and roasts and chops, and for their protection
against enemies. Women needed the skins of these slaughtered
animals for shawls and blankets, the skulls for containers, the bones
for tools, and the sinews for string and cord.

Surely men and women smiled and joked when they returned at night
to feed the embers and recount the day's events. Undoubtedly they
flirted as they sucked on bones and berries across the smoky haze. And
most likely they slipped in next to one another as the campfire faded
and sometimes kissed and held each other long into the night. But
what these people dreamed, who they loved, or what they thought as
they drifted off to sleep is gone with the firelight.

These were not ancient replicas of modern people. They painted no

pictures of bears or bison on cave walls. No small bone needles suggest
they made tailored coats. No amulets indicate they worshiped the sun,
the stars, or a god. They left no graves. But they were almost human
beings. They had big brains. They nurtured flame. They bore very
helpless babies, as we do today. Immature teenagers trailed along with
one or both parents and other members of the band. Old and young
were all intertwined in an elaborate network of related kin. And the
fireside had become synonymous with "home."
By 300,000, some from among these ancestors of ours had begun to
emerge into archaic forms of modern men and women. Now our world
of sex would take its completely human form.

13

The First Aliment Society

A Flowering 01 Conscience

Two things fill the mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the
more

often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them:
the

starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.

— Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

eneath the quiet towns of southwestern France, the Pyrenees, and

northern Spain, restless ancient torrents carved out a labyrinth of
caves. Here, in the windless chasms deep below the ground,
stalagmites and stalactites attend like ghostly ivory soldiers. Bullets of
dripping water make a metallic ping in the utter quiet. The sounds of
bats dance off craggy pits and hollows. And the roar of still-living
rivers rushes up through chutes, funnels, and "cat holes," then
vanishes into stillness at some hairpin turn.

What nature built, our ancestors came to decorate between twenty and
ten thousand years ago, leaving behind thousands of cave paintings
and engravings, evidence that modern humanity had burst onto earth.

In the giant underground rotundas in the cave at Lascaux, near Les

Eyzies, France, someone painted dozens of stampeding herd

animals. In a recess of the cave of Les Trois Freres, in the Pyrenees,

another artist incised a magical beast—with the head of a man, the
antlers of a stag, and the body and tail of a horse. In the La Juyo cave,
in Spain, our forebears carved a monstrous stone head, half man, half
cat. In over thirty caves giant bison, reindeer, mammoths, ibex, bears,
and other beasts are outlined in red or black, their fur and muscles
filled in with carefully placed strokes that use the natural fissures and
protrusions of the rock.

And where real figures give way to magical ones, headless horses,
duckbilled people, wolf-headed bears, disembodied hands with
missing fingers, floating arms and legs, snake patterns, and dots and
dashes dance along the walls and ceilings. Some of these paintings
appear in large galleries; others are painted in culs-de-sac so remote
that professional spelunkers have fainted from claustrophobia trying
to gain access to these crypts.

In these sunless tunnels, amid heightened sounds and cool, stagnant

air, something of significance was going on. No one lived here. Our
ancestors came to paint and gather for communal purposes instead.
Perhaps they held ceremonies to ensure a good hunting season, to
celebrate the birth of a son or daughter, to cure the sick, to fulfill a
ritual in a myth, or for a host of other purposes. 1 John Pfeiffer, in his
book The Creative Explosion, proposes that they may have held
complex initiation rituals as well.

Pfeiffer thinks it possible that young initiates were left in isolated

tombs in the bowels of the earth until fear, isolation, and monotony
stripped them of their normal senses and put them in a trance-like
state of receptivity. Then their elders, using trickery and illusion, led
these spellbound youngsters through convoluted alleys while they told
them important clan traditions, clan history, and clan legends, the
accumulated wisdom of the tribe.

To emphasize an incident in an encyclopedic tale, these sorcerers may

have held a lamp beneath a painting. The flickering torch lit a hand or
bird or fish, then suddenly a dancing snorting elk or swimming stag to
animate a specific point in the story line. Then after each meandering
trek, these priests assembled their disoriented stu-
dents in large subterranean theaters where the brainwashed youths
underwent more ordeals and repetitions that permanently etched
these "textbooks" in their minds.

What were the elders saying? Why this first flowering of human art?
What does this outpouring of artistic expression say about human
sexuality twenty thousand years ago?

Pfeiffer thinks these people were experiencing an "information

explosion," produced by vast changes in technology and expanding
social networks. And because the footprints of children are prevalent
in many of these caves, he theorizes that these young were taken into
these surreal mazes to participate in initiation rituals designed to
teach them all these new facts.

Even today this strategy is common. Human beings around the world
store concepts and data in art form. One look at a swastika can elicit a
panoply of remembered information about Hitler and the Nazis, while
a cross has tremendous symbolic power to a Christian. The Australian
aborigines use their myths and arts as mnemonics (as well as for many
other purposes), and it was the inventiveness of these people that led
Pfeiffer to his theory about the cave art.

The Australian aborigines live in the world's most barren desert. If

they are to find water regularly, they are obliged to remember every
rise, every dip, every tree, rock, and hole in an area of several hundred
miles. So every physical feature of the landscape is woven into
elaborate tales of mythical ancestral beings. The dots, squiggles, and
figures they paint on their tools, on walls, and on themselves often
symbolically depict the water holes and rock formations where these
apparitions visit. Thus the myths, songs, and art are actually maps of
the Australian outback. As one memorizes the escapades of the gods,
the smallest details of the desert become committed to memory too.

To teach their children all this lore, Australian aborigines put their
young through excruciating ordeals. Traditionally, the Arunta of
central Australia took their male initiates into the desert far from
home and family, denied them food and clothing, and sang, danced,
and acted out these survival tales. 2 On the final night of the ritual the
youngsters were concealed under blankets beside a roaring fire.

And after the chanting, darkness, isolation, and fear engulfed the
youths, their penises were slit from tip to base. A horrible experience.
But these boys never forgot the script they had learned; and it would
forever guide them from one water hole to the next.

The cave paintings of these early European peoples, PfeifTer thinks,

were just the same—cue cards for ancient epic tales, part of a "survival
course" in an era of dangerous social change.

We will never know exactly what occurred in the bowels of the earth so
long ago. But one thing is clear: humankind had metamorphosed from
being simple hunting-scavenging-gathering creatures with fire and a
few elementary tools into individuals who consciously sought out the
depths of caves to paint on walls, primates richly endowed with
abstract symbolic culture.

Anthropologists use the term symbolic thinking to mean the ability

arbitrarily to bestow an abstract concept upon the concrete world. The
classic example is holy water. To a chimpanzee, the water sitting in a
marble basin in a cathedral is just that, water; to a Catholic it is an
entirely different thing, holy water. Likewise, the color black is black to
any chimp, while to you it might connote death. When our ancestors
acquired the ability to create symbols for thoughts, ideas, and concepts
and to use these symbols to express themselves, the truly modern
human mind had emerged.

It is now debated whether the immediate precursors of these cave

painters, the Neanderthals, engaged in symbolic thinking or whether
symbolic thinking sprang into life among these modern human cave
artisans instead. 3 This question is important to our understanding of
the evolution of human sexuality. For it is only with this capacity for
symbolic thought, and for formulating abstract ideas such as
good/bad, right/wrong, and should/shouldn't, that humankind could
fully evolve such essentially modern concepts as morality, conscience,
and our vast store of culturally coded beliefs, rituals, taboos, and rules
about sex and love.

To be expected, the fossil record offers a mixed bag of clues to the

puzzle of when symbolic thinking actually appeared in human history.

Neanderthal Bashing

For over a million years before our ancestors began to paint the walls
of caves in France and Spain, episodes of severe cold had gripped the
northern climes in ice and struck the tropics with drought. Each Ice
Age lasted several thousand years, followed by milder weather. During
these intense glacial ages and warmer interglacial epochs, our
ancestors crept north in small bands. By 100,000 years ago, Homo
sapiens neanderthalensis —an archaic racial variant of modern people
—lived in Europe as well as in the Near East and in Central Asia. 4

The Neanderthals were a curious combination of physical traits. They

had heavy brow ridges above their eyes, rugged teeth and jaws, and
muscular, thick-boned bodies; if you saw one on a street in America
today you definitely would think him brutish. Yet these people with
beetle brows had skulls larger than ours—as well as brains organized
just like yours and mine. We know this from studying the contours of
their ancient crania, which is done quite easily by means of
"endocasts."

These are ingenious inventions: you simply take some rubber, pour it
into a Neanderthal cranium, let the latex set, and remove the lumpy
blob. On the surface of this endocast are all the tiny impressions of the
skull that the brain engraved when this protoplasm once squeezed
against its bony helmet. So the design of seams, grooves, and fissures
on the surface of the rubber shows how the brain's lobes were
organized. These endocasts illustrate that the Neanderthal brain was
constructed like ours today. 5

These people thought.

They also spoke. The remarkable discovery of a Neanderthal hyoid

bone, the tiny U-shaped bone that lies suspended in the throat and
aids in speech, suggests that the Neanderthals had the physical ability
to talk with modern human language. 6 But here disagreement festers.
Some scientists report that the shape of the bottom of the Neanderthal
skull, the basicranium, is not fully flexed (as is the modern human
skull)—indicating that the larynx (or voice box) had not fully
descended down the throat. 7 Hence Neanderthals may not

have been able to produce the vowel sounds i or u. They may have
sounded more nasal than modern people too.

Several anthropologists remain unconvinced by these data, however.

The shape of the basicranium, they argue, may not be an accurate
indicator of the shape of the oral cavities. Moreover, one does not need
our full array of linguistic sounds to speak with human tones or make
human grammatical constructions. Hawaiian tongues, for example,
have far fewer linguistic sounds than English does, and Navajo has
many more; yet all of these people use a modern human language.

I suspect that by the time the Neanderthals were roasting mammoth

tongues and lying with one another in the snow-bound caves of
ancient France some 100,000 years ago, they spoke much as we do
today.

But did the Neanderthals "believe" in anything? Had they created the
concept of the soul or plan for an afterlife? Did they have a symbolic
world?

In several caves across Europe archaeologists have found what look

like shallow graves where Neanderthals may have interred their dead,
tucked in sleeping positions. Kin may have left grave offerings as well,
for some of the skeletons were surrounded by stone tools, well-placed
stones or bones or horns of animals. At the most controversial site, a
cave high in the hills of northern Iraq, friends and lovers may have laid
bouquets of flowers on the deceased some sixty thousand years ago.
Around the bones were scattered the fossilized pollens of hollyhocks,
grape hyacinths, bachelor's buttons, yellow-flowering groundsel, and
other wildflowers of the area. 8
If the Neanderthals believed in an afterlife, if they thought that human
beings had souls, then they could symbolize. And if they could
symbolize and think in abstract terms, they undoubtedly had
developed beliefs and rules about such fundamental matters as sex
and marriage too.

Skeptics do not accept that possibility. They maintain that sick people
may have crawled into some of these caves to die, that others were
buried simply to dispose of the bodies, and that still other corpses
were carried into caves by feeding carnivores; then the artifacts
appeared around the skeletons by accident at later dates.

Hence these burials were not intentional. As for the flowers, these
pollens could have blown into the cave on winds or been carried into
these shelters on rodents' paws or insects' wings. They conclude that
there were no ceremonial burials, no grave offerings, no bouquets; the
Neanderthals had not evolved the capacity for symbolic thought. 9

Skeptics would probably argue that the red ocher found at several
Neanderthal sites did not illustrate symbolic thinking either. People
around the world use red ocher to color their faces, hands, figures, and
regalia before a ceremony. But this red crumbly rock is also used to tan
hides and repel vermin. Perhaps the Neanderthals used it for these
purely functional reasons; perhaps they did not have the aesthetic
symbolic sense to decorate themselves.

What Is Art For?

No one knows whether the Neanderthals had begun to adorn the

burials of loved ones with grave offerings or decorate themselves and
their belongings. But ethologist Ellen Dissanayake thinks they did.
And she has an interesting proposal for the evolution of the human
drive to create art and appreciate the arts.

In her book What Is Art For? Dissanayake traces all of the arts back to
an apparent human need to shape, to embellish, to beautify, to make
things and activities "special." Those who made an event or tool
special with decorations or ritualistic fanfare remembered the
occasion. And because the creating of tools and the performing of
ceremonies were acts important to survival, those who produced art
and appreciated the arts lived on. Hence our ancestors evolved the
biological proclivity to make and enjoy paintings, sculpture, and all the
other arts.

Dissanayake notes that some 250,000 years ago two individuals in

today's England each chipped flint hand axes and both stone tools had
a fossil shell prominently displayed at their center. These people had
found the fossil and fashioned the tool around it—they had begun to
recognize special things and make their tools special. At about the
same time in prehistory someone left globs of red, yellow, brown, and
purple ocher in a sea cliff cave in France; perhaps these

people had begun to make themselves and their belongings special too.

The Neanderthals did not leave us much of their art, however, if they
really had any. Someone marked some bear teeth with shallow
grooves; another punctured a fox tooth; another perforated a reindeer
bone. Only a few other questionable signs of artistic endeavor remain
from this period of human prehistory—not an impressive inventory of
aesthetic expression. But it was a beginning. So Dis-sanayake is
convinced that the Neanderthals were indeed embellishing their grave
sites and using ocher for decorative purposes, that by then an artistic
predisposition was becoming part of human nature, encoded in our
DNA.

The Neanderthals remain a mystery. We cannot be sure that they

enjoyed abstract symbolic thought or had rules for sex and love. All we
really know is that they lived in small nomadic hunting bands, made
large stone tools, did some long-distance trading across Europe,
hunted big game, and ate a great deal of meat. Several thousand bones
of mammoths, woolly rhinos, reindeer, and bison have been excavated
below sheer rock walls where these hunters drove the beasts from
plateaus above. This "cliff fall" hunting marked an innovation—and it
was organized, systematic, planned. 10

How these people loved, whom they loved, where they loved—we can
only wonder about these things. All the passion and pain, the
jealousies and intrigues, the incidents and conversations, have
vanished. Only ancient pollens on an ancient grave indicate that
someone may have mourned another so long ago.

Then the Neanderthals mysteriously died out about 36,000 years ago,
replaced in western Europe by modern Homo sapiens sapiens — men
and women who looked just like you and me, totally modern people
who began to paint the cave walls of France and Spain and perform
ceremonies in a dank, still world beneath the ground.

These new individuals left all sorts of artifacts, however, clear signs
that human beings had evolved the ability for abstract symbolic
thought—as well as a conscience, a complex system of beliefs about
right and wrong, and stringent rules about sex and love.

How and why modern humankind replaced the Neanderthals are

questions that have captured the imagination of archaeologists,
novelists, and laymen for more than a century. Traditionally scientists
thought that Homo sapiens simply evolved from populations of
Neanderthals then living in Europe; now many believe that these
modern people originated in Africa at least 90,000 ago and swept into
Europe from the Near East, killing off the Neanderthals instead. 11
Whatever their relationship, the hapless Neanderthals ceased to be
and new modern Cro-Magnon individuals, named after the place in
France where their bones were first discovered, appeared across
Europe by 35,000 years ago.

Now human art and cultural life exploded.

Some think this remarkable creative outburst began with population

pressure. 12 At this time the inclement weather of the most recent
glacial age was raging in the north; the land where London is today lay
under a mile-high rind of ice. But along what is now the
Mediterranean stretched vast grasslands much like today's Seren-geti.
Here woolly mammoths, woolly rhinos, reindeer, ibex, bison, ancient
horses, and hundreds of other hooved animals grazed in droves.
Pushed by glaciers to the north and deserts to the south, our ancestors
congregated on these savannas, too, in what is today France and
Spain.

And as people became hemmed in by one another, they were forced to

forge new social networks and create all sorts of new traditions to
survive.

The cave art was only one of their innovations. About a dozen people
must have worked a week stacking the jaw bones of ninety-five
mammoths, one atop the next in a herringbone design, to build the
sides of one oval hut found in the Ukraine dating to some 20,000
years ago. 13 Others in this ancient village painstakingly arranged the
long bones of mammoths to make oval huts. Then these early
architects threw skins over the bones or chinked each structure with
mud and grass to keep out the winter winds. And near their houses
they dug storage pits, indicating that our relatives had begun to settle
down.

Cro-Magnon people also built houses of skin and wood at the fords of
rivers where the great herds came to drink, atop hillsides with a vista,
and on sunny floodplains that straddled migration trails.

Usually these homes faced south to take advantage of solar heat. By

the time the cave art reached its height, 15,000 years ago, some were
clearly living in large seasonal communities.

No longer could men and women pick up and leave when conflict
surged. Instead, bands had to cooperate, thus setting the stage for
social and political hierarchies with rules.

As populations rose and resources grew scarce, Cro-Magnon people

were compelled to invent new tools and weapons too. Whereas
Neanderthal folk had made only large stone tools, these modern
human beings fashioned utensils of ivory, bone, and antler.
Lightweight barbed harpoons, fishhooks, spear-throwers, and
miniature projectile points—perhaps used in the first bows and arrows
—became part of a vast new array of deadly weapons. 14 Big-game
hunting of reindeer and wild cattle intensified.
Impressions of plaited strands found on a bit of clay in the Lascaux
cave suggest they made cordage, probably rope, twine, netting, and
fishing line. And because amber mined in the Baltic has turned up in
their homes on the Russian plains and because seashells from the
Atlantic are found over a hundred miles away in Les Eyzies, France,
these people must have established networks of exchange and engaged
regularly in long-distance trade for precious stones and lithic raw
materials. 15

Life took on gaiety. Cro-Magnon people invented the flute, the whistle,
and the drum. They wore necklaces of bear and lion teeth, bone
bracelets and pendants, and hundreds upon hundreds of ivory, shell,
and stone beads. 16 Bone needles as small and sharp as any found in a
modern sewing kit were used to sew hooded parkas and make shirts
with collars and cuffs, tunics, leggings, boots, and other tailored
clothing. Palm-sized portable figurines of big-busted, fat-buttocked
women (known as Venus figurines) as well as sculptured animals of
ivory, bone, and ceramics have been found in places ranging from the
Pyrenees to the Urals. Perhaps these were fertility symbols, aids to
divination, or good-luck charms. 17

They may also have developed social strata. When two children were
buried near Moscow, our Cro-Magnon ancestors bedecked the bodies
with rings, anklets, spears, darts, daggers, and some 10,000 beads.
These youngsters could not have earned fame as mighty hunt-

ers or leaders of any sort; were they of an upper class?

No wonder PfeifFer thinks these people led their children through the
belly of the earth and scared them half to death to train them for
adulthood. Life had become vastly more complex. These people lived
cheek by jowl in the world's first seasonal villages. They had myths,
magic, rituals, and gods. They enjoyed music, dance, and song. They
buried their dead with grave goods. They wore fox skin coats, braided
their hair, donned jewelry, and styled their clothes. They used stone
lamps with burning oil in order to paint in caves and light the night.
They sat around well-built hearths, roasted large sides of beef, and
talked with human language. They looked like us; they thought like us.
And they had a whole corpus of traditions they embodied in their art.
Theirs was the original affluent society.

These men and women must have had mores about sexuality,
marriage, adultery, and divorce. What were these codes for love?

Forbidden Fruit

All human societies have some sort of incest taboo. 18 At times in

history the Egyptians, Iranians, Romans, and others sanctioned
brother-sister incest for special groups such as royalty. But with these
few curious exceptions, mother-son, father-daughter, and brother-
sister matings have been forbidden; the incest taboo is universal to
humankind. Moreover, this stringent rule is the first sexual restriction
children learn. Infringement sometimes brings severe punishment,
even death, mutilation, or ostracism. And the taboo is never lifted—
regardless of one's age or reproductive status.

It is fair to assume that the human incest taboo had emerged among
Cro-Magnon peoples (or long before)—for several reasons. Foremost,
incest would have been vastly impractical. If a Cro-Magnon girl mated
with her brother or her father and produced a baby, the group then
had a helpless new member and no new adult to help support the
infant. What a dangerous economic burden. It was far more
economically logical to breed with an outsider and enlist this foreigner
as manpower to help rear the child.

Incestuous matings would have caused endless social conflict too.

Humans are jealous, possessive creatures; we are not built to share a

beloved sex partner. So incestuous sex would have caused serious

domestic rivalry, undermining the fragile relationship between wife
and husband, weakening friendships between kin, and disturbing
social order. 19 Incest might have affected the child's social
development as well. Children attach to parents. But if a parent has
coitus with the youngster, this can weaken the authority of the adult,
inhibit trust, and interfere with the psychological process of separation
from family.
Cro-Magnon people could not afford all this discord.

Incest also carried political liabilities. As the old axiom goes, "It is
better to marry out then to be killed out." 20 If your daughter leaves
the group to mate with a man in the next valley, your relations with
these people improve; they become kin. If she stays home and mates
with you, you have forged no new trading, warring, or social ties.

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of human cultures prescribe that

the young marry outside the family, the clan, sometimes even the
community. 21 This does not necessarily preclude incest, but it does
ensure the flow of adults, goods, and information between different
social units, reducing the likelihood of incest as well as encouraging
the "good neighbor" policy. "Breeding out" was also important in order
to avoid dangerous physical effects. 22

So for economic, social, political, and genetic reasons, it seems likely

that Cro-Magnon people had rules that parents and siblings were not
fair game. In fact, so important were helpers to raising the young,
group harmony, band cohesiveness, political ties, and genetic health
that our Cro-Magnon ancestors may even have inherited a biological
distaste for incestuous relationships—a predisposition to mate and
breed outside the nuclear family.

Incest

A genetic tendency to avoid sex with mother, father, or siblings? This

is not a new idea. In 1891 Edward Westermarck first proposed this,
saying that children develop a natural physical repulsion toward those
they grew up with. 23 Since then this aversion has been confirmed by
studies of sexuality in Israel.

Investigations began when Melford Spiro watched infants as they

grew up together in a kevutza, a common living, sleeping, and bathing

quarter where a group of age-mates lived throughout their juvenile
years. 24 Here boys and girls played at sex, lying under bedcovers
together, examining one another in a game they called clinic— which
consisted of kissing, hugging, and touching one another's genitals. By
age twelve, however, these children became shy and tense in one
another's company; by fifteen they developed strong brother-sister
bonds.

Although these unrelated youngsters were free to copulate and marry,

to Spiro's knowledge not a single one either wed or even engaged in
intercourse with another member of the same kevutza group.

Pursuing this investigation in the early 1970s, sociologist Joseph

Shepher obtained records on all known kibbutzim marriages; of 2,769
weddings, only 13 occurred between individuals of the same peer
group. And none of these marriage partners had entered their
common childhood living arrangement until after the age of six.
Shepher thinks there is a critical time in childhood between ages three
and six when people develop a natural sexual aversion for those they
see regularly. 25

Chemistry seems to play a role in incest avoidance. And this

physiological response must have evolved by the time our ancestors
were wearing foxskin coats, playing flutes, and decorating the walls of
caves in France and Spain—for incest avoidance has extensive
correlations in the rest of the animal community.

Among birds, insects, and other mammals, opposite-sexed creatures

reared together also prefer to mate with strangers. In fact, other
species have developed so many ways to avoid inbreeding that
biologists think the human incest taboo actually derives from our
animal nature. 26

Higher primates, for instance, recognize kin and rarely breed with
close relatives, particularly mothers. One reason for this is nicely
illustrated by young male rhesus monkeys on Cayo Santiago Island,
just east of Puerto Rico, although it also applies to you and me. Here
males grow up under the tutelage of their mother and her close

female kin. As juveniles mature, they rarely approach their mother

sexually, however. Instead, they see this female as an authority figure
and a wailing wall. Rather than court her, they become infantile,
climbing into her arms, cooing, and nuzzling instead; some even try to
suckle. 27 Men and women occasionally regress, too, becoming quite
childlike in the presence of their parents.

Brother-sister incest and father-daughter matings are rare in nature

for a different reason. In many species, either the pubescent male or
female leaves the social group. Chimpanzee siblings sometimes end up
in the same community, however, and at the Gombe Stream Reserve,
Tanzania, Goodall sawa few incestuous matings. During these
copulations either the brother or the sister appeared extraordinarily
bored or the two had a vicious fight. Fifi, for example, hung screaming
from a branch as her brother, Figan, forced her into coitus.

These same natural antipathies to incest must have been present in

our distant human past. Probably as early as four million years ago
individuals saw those they grew up with as sexually unattractive; they
sought their parents for succor, not for copulation, and boys or girls
switched groups at puberty. Under "natural" conditions incest was
rare. Then, when humankind evolved a brain capable of making,
remembering, and following sexual rules, people readily sensed the
economic, social, and political disadvantages of incest. So what had
been a natural tendency became a cultural dictum too. 28

When in human history this occurred we will never learn, but surely
by the time Cro-Magnon women and men were learning the legends of
their ancestors in eerie caverns beneath the Pyrenees, they knew
whom they could court and marry and who was "forbidden fruit."
Incest had become taboo.

Undoubtedly these people had other sexual prohibitions. Postpartum

taboos are the most universal of these mores, existing in some 94
percent of all cultures on record. 29 Generally couples are supposed to
abstain from sex for about six months after the birth of a child. These
rules probably evolved so that mother—and father—could attend to
their helpless infant.

In every known society sexual intercourse has spawned myriad

beliefs, so there is every reason to think our Cro-Magnon ancestors
had their own. But which ones? The Bellacoola of central British
Columbia, for example, believe that chastity brings a man closer to the
supernatural—as do many Christians. Many peoples think continence
is critical before a hunt and some American football coaches are
convinced their players do better if they avoid sex prior to a game.

Cro-Magnon couples probably avoided making love for a period of

time after bearing a child and never had intercourse before they set
out to stalk prey or attend a ritual in a cave. And they must have
coupled in the dark or out of view. Nowhere in the world do people
regularly have coitus in public.

In the vast majority of societies men and women bestow power on

menstrual blood. Our European ancestors were steeped in
superstitions about this. "In various parts of Europe/' wrote Sir James
Frazer, the great explorer of worldwide folklore, "it is still believed that
if a woman in her courses enters a brewery the beer will turn sour; if
she touches beer, wine, vinegar or milk, it will go bad; if she makes
jam, it will not keep; if she mounts a mare, it will miscarry; if she
touches buds, they will wither; if she climbs a cherry tree, it will die."
30 Until the 1950s American women still called menstruation "the
curse" and avoided sexual contact when it occurred.

Our Cro-Magnon ancestors probably avoided making love during the

woman's menstrual period as well.

Undoubtedly they also observed codes for sexual modesty. Even in the
steamy jungles of Amazonia women and men wear clothing, although
you might not recognize it as such. Yanomamo women wear no more
than a thin cord around their waists. But if you ask a woman to remove
her string belt, she shows just as much anguish as does an American
woman if you ask her to take off her blouse. A Yanomamo man wears a
string about his abdomen, and he carefully tucks the foreskin of his
penis into it so that his genitals lie snugly against his stomach. When a
Yanomamo man's penis slips from its mooring, he responds with the
same embarrassment that a tennis player might if his penis flopped
from the leg of his shorts.
Be it a string belt in Amazonia or a full-length dress in Victorian
England, men and women give power to apparel. Without this sexual
drapery they are nude, vulnerable, ashamed. Since our Cro-Magnon
ancestors were wearing leather tunics and necklaces of lion's teeth,
they undoubtedly had clothing codes for their genitals as well. And
they were fastidious about their sexual decorum.

Last, our ancestors must have had precepts about adultery and
divorce. As you recall, hunting-gathering and gardening peoples are
generally less finicky about infidelity than are many Western
industrial societies. Maybe the punishment for philandering in a Cro-
Magnon community was no more than an afternoon of public ridicule,
a mild beating, or a few fierce arguments. But surely by 35,000 years
ago our ancestors had developed strictures about fidelity—and both
men and women knew these rules.

Even the most hotheaded must also have honored basic customs for
divorce. In small groups, where gossip is a perennial pastime and
ostracism is tantamount to death, no one wishes to risk too much
alienation. So long before a Cro-Magnon man or woman gathered a
few belongings and stomped off to another valley, to another band, he
or she must have spent many afternoons staring across the meadows,
pondering, deliberating how to break the news, deciding when it was
most appropriate to go and how to do it according to etiquette.

Origins of "Ought"

Rules, rules, rules. How did Cro-Magnon people curb their sexual
desires and abide by all these strictures? Had they a conscience,
feelings of morality, a sense of right and wrong?

Probably. ''Of all the differences between man and the lower animals,"
Darwin wrote, "the moral sense or conscience is by far the most
important/' He defined conscience by saying, "It is summed up in that
short but imperious word, 'ought.' " 31 I suspect ought was a well-used
term by the time Cro-Magnon folk were terrifying and educating their
children in magical caves deep below the ground.
How did this extraordinary thing, our human conscience, evolve?

In 1962 Michael Chance proposed a theory for the evolution of self-

control that gives a clue to how conscience could have emerged

in humankind. 32 Chance reasoned that in order to manipulate older,

more powerful males and work their way up the dominance ladder,
young male primates had to "equilibrate," to balance alternatives and
control their sexual and aggressive drives. Those who could act from
the head rather than the heart survived, selecting for the expansion of
the brain in higher primates as well as for the ability to defer
gratification and control one's sexual impulses.

Anthropologist Robin Fox then used this kernel to theorize about the
evolution of conscience in people. He reasoned that as human social
life emerged, young men had to follow stringent new rules concerning
whom to court and whom to avoid, intensifying their need to restrain
their natural sexual and aggressive drives. "The upshot of this
selection process/' Fox writes, "was to produce a creature who was
capable of becoming extremely guilty about his sexuality." 33

And Fox is convinced that our conscience is "soft-wired" in the brain.

He describes this predisposition as "a syndrome of genetically
determined behaviors which make the pubescent human, in particular,
susceptible to guilt and other forms of conditioning surrounding the
sexual-aggressive drives." 34 The seat of the conscience, Fox thinks, is
the amygdala, a tiny gland connected to the primitive emotional center
(the limbic system), as well as to the nearby hippocampus, which
controls memory, and to the sophisticated neocor-tical thinking areas
of the brain.

Welcome, the amygdala. Could this spare bit of protoplasm be among

the culprits that keep you up at night when you try to resolve a moral
problem? Some scientists think that the endorphins, the "feel good"
chemicals in the brain, may also be involved; when one acts in
accordance with the rules, one secretes these natural morphines and
feels rewarded and secure. 35
Fox may be onto something. Perhaps the proclivity for morality does
reside in our DNA. Studies of infants certainly support this view.
Scientists now believe that the potential for moral reactions is present
when a neonate emerges from the womb. 36 An infant, for example,
will begin to cry when it hears another sob. Known as global

empathy, this generalized concern, this sympathy, this''foundation-

stone," as Darwin called it, is the first twinkle of what will blossom into
the child's moral code.

Then morality develops in stages. 37 Between the ages of one and two,
children achieve a sense of "self" and "other" and begin to express
specific care about those around them. A toddler will attempt to
comfort a hurt friend, for example. Toddlers feel shame and, slightly
later, guilt. They understand rules of right and wrong. And they try to
adhere to convention, honoring secrecy, stealth, and social propriety.

From these beginnings, boys and girls continue to absorb their

culture's moral rules and build their personal styles of adhering and
cheating. Even these generalized styles have an adaptive component.
Young children are exceedingly self-centered. Indeed, from a
Darwinian perspective they should be self-centered; altruism is not
logical for the very young, whose primary goal is to survive. On the
other hand, it is to a teenager's adaptive advantage to make alliances
with peers. And we all know that adolescents are highly sensitive to
peer approval; their moral codes reflect this obsession with peer
acceptance. Then as people age, they assume the moral systems of
parents, obviously to prepare them to rear their own young.

"Far from knowing whether it is learned or inherited, I have no idea of

what virtue is," Socrates once said. Certainly definitions of morality
vary with age, with status, and from one individual and one culture to
the next. What is virtuous behavior in New Guinea is not necessarily
virtuous in the United States. But it appears that the human animal is
born to construct beliefs of right and wrong; then we absorb our
culture's mores; then we wrestle with our inner disposition to follow or
bend the rules. Hence no one has to teach you to feel guilty; people
just teach you what to feel guilty about.
The Unfolding Conscience

When this human predisposition for moral behavior evolved is

another matter. Darwin noted that many animals exhibit "social
instincts" such as defending their young, comforting others, and
sharing their food—behaviors that human beings definitely call moral

behavior when we see it among ourselves. Morality had analogues in

nonhuman creatures. So Darwin proposed that ancestral forms of man
also had these social instincts, that these drives "served him at a very
early period as a rude rule of right and wrong. But as man gradually
advanced in intellectual power ... so would the standard of his morality
rise higher and higher/' 38

It is not difficult to imagine that the evolution of serial monogamy and

clandestine adultery triggered the beginnings of selection for this
moral wiring some four million years ago. What conflict this dual
reproductive strategy produced. To form a pair-bond and also be
adulterous required the skills of deceit and judgment and the ability to
weigh the odds, to equilibrate, as Chance has said. Then, if what Fox
has proposed is right, as human social life became more complex and
our ancestors continued to jockey for sex and power, they acquired a
conscience too.

Anthropologist Mary Maxwell dissects the evolution of conscience

even further. 39 As men and women became engaged in larger and
larger networks of social obligations, she proposes, individuals became
more driven by the opposing values of reproductive self-interest and
the necessity to cooperate within a larger group. Here was conflict. The
Good Samaritan would die out as he overlooked his own sexual
opportunities in order to obey the rules. So as individuals became
adept at conniving for personal reproductive gain, moral precepts—
along with the human predilection to evaluate the Tightness and
wrongness of an action, known as conscience— evolved to counteract
this selfishness.

Biologist Richard Alexander adds one last stimulus to the evolution of

moral rules and conscience: warfare. He proposes that our hunter-
gatherer ancestors lived in high-density, rich environments where they
experienced considerable trouble with neighbors. Bands needed to
present a united front against these foes. Because each individual was
ultimately self-centered, moral rules necessarily arose. These
widespread, agreed-upon opinions—moral strictures—set standards.
And as members of the group conformed, they acquired internal
cohesion, peace, and a unified front against hostile neighbors.

Cheaters were also selected for, however—they could reap ancil-

lary personal benefits from their indiscretions, as long as they were

not caught. So as individuals began to weigh the costs and benefits of
adhering to these mores, as opposed to cheating here and there, men
and women developed the ability to distinguish between right and
wrong. They also developed a conscience, "the still small voice," as
Alexander puts it, "that tells us how far we can go in serving our own
interests without incurring intolerable risks." 40

"A society works best when people want to do what they have to do,"
said the American psychoanalyst Erich Fromm. He knew the power of
the conscience as social glue.

What, then, of Cro-Magnon men and women? Carefree savages, free to

wander, copulate, and desert their partners, these ancestors certainly
were not. Undoubtedly the core of their moral spirit came directly out
of nature and was present in some embryonic form by four million
years ago when our first hominid forebears evolved the human
reproductive strategy of monogamy, infidelity, and divorce. The
Neanderthals, with modern brains but a society largely devoid of art,
probably had feelings of right and wrong, a few moral rules, and a
sense of duty to abide by group mores. Then, by the time Cro-Magnon
people were painting symbols on cave walls beneath ancient France,
our ancestors had become beleaguered by sexual codes, by peer
pressure, by superstition, and by their conscience.

"The heart of man is made so as to reconcile contradictions," the

eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume once said. I
imagine more than one Cro-Magnon woman lay awake in her warm
skin hut, tossing, listening to the sighing of the embers and the
breathing of her husband as she debated whether to meet another man
in a secluded glade early the next morning.

Such women would not be the last to struggle with the fickle passions
of humanity.

14

Fickle Passion

Romance in Yesteryears

I am the family face;

Flesh perishes, I live on,

Projecting trait and trace

Through time to times anon,

And leaping from place to place

Over oblivion.

The years-heired feature that can

In curve and voice and eye

Despise the human span

Of durance — that is I;

The eternal thing in man,

That heeds no call to die.

— Thomas Hardy, "Heredity 77

"TT

Vyp the stream, past the overhanging rock, you'll see some small white
pebbles on the trail that lead into the bush. Follow these. Not far along
the animal path you'll come across water dripping from an
overhanging rock. Above the rock is a piney overlook. Wait there. Til
come." He sat and listened, thinking of her laugh, her good directions,
this secret spot. As he mused, he whittled a fist-sized ivory horse. He'd
give her the present today, he thought. How many million men and
women have loved each other in all the seasons that preceded you and
me? How many of their dreams have been fulfilled? How many nights
did our ancestors beseech the stars for a change in their fortune or
thank the gods for their tranquillity as they nestled in one another's
arms? Sometimes I walk through the halls at the American Museum of
Natural History and wonder about the great love stories that still live
in the little ivory

horses, the shell beads, the amber pendants, and the old tools and
bones and stones that now rest in the museum cases.

How did our ancestors love?

We have one final clue to the nature of sexuality in yesteryear— the

lives of traditional peoples around the world today. So I have picked
two to write about, the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert and the Mehinaku
of Amazonia, largely because anthropologists Marjorie Shostak and
Thomas Gregor have so vividly described their sexual attitudes and
behaviors. 1

Neither culture represents life as it was 20,000 years ago when our
Cro-Magnon ancestors had begun to moralize and worry, to worship
and obey, to carve big-busted women and draw vaginas on the walls of
dank caverns deep beneath the soil. But these contemporary
traditional societies do have patterns of sexuality in common. These
themes, these similarities, these basic patterns of romance, are also
seen in other societies across the continents, so they must have
evolved with the dawn of modern humankind—if not long before.
Sex on the Kalahari

Nisa's first sexual memories were of lying beside her parents in their
tiny hut of brush and sticks, just large enough to lie in. If Nisa feigned
sleep, she could watch her parents "do their work." Daddy would wet
his hand with saliva, put this liquid on Mommy's genitals and move up
and down on top of her. Sometimes during a trip into the bush to
collect vegetables, her mother would set Nisa down beneath a tree and
go off to copulate with another man. Once Nisa got so impatient that
she screamed through the bush, 'Til tell Daddy he had sex with you!"

Nisa knew in infancy that sex was yet another thing that grownups did
and that it had rules that were often broken.

After Nisa was weaned, she no longer accompanied her mother on her
gathering expeditions. The !Kung say children walk too slowly, they
are nothing but a nuisance. Instead, Nisa stayed in camp and played
with friends. Regularly the gang of children left the circle of five or six
huts, however, to build a "pretend village" some distance into the
bush. Here they played at hunting, gathering, singing, "trancing,"
cooking, sharing—and "marrying."

"Marrying" consisted of pairing up, sharing their "pretend catch" of

food with a "make-believe spouse," and playing with this partner—
sexually. The boys would remove the leather aprons the girls were
wearing, lie down on top of them, wet their genitals with saliva and
poke around with a semi-erection as if they were having intercourse.
At first Nisa was not an avid player, she told the anthropologist, but
she liked to watch.

Boys and girls also sneaked into the bush to meet and play at sex with
forbidden lovers. The boys normally initiated this pastime, saying,
"We'll be your lovers because we already have wives in the other huts
over there. We'll come and do what lovers do, then go back to them."
"Being unfaithful" was another variation. Once again the boys began
the game, saying to the girls, "People tell us that you like other men."
The girls would deny it. But the boys would insist the girls had
philandered, threatening to hit them so that they wouldn't take extra
lovers any more. This way, as Nisa says, "they played and played."

!Kung parents do not approve of these sexual games, but they do

nothing more than scold their children and tell them to "play nicely."
With teenagers they use the common tactic of Americans and just look
the other way.

Nisa's first teenage crush was on Tikay. She and her boyfriend built a
little hut, and every day they played at sex, "doing everything but
screw." But Nisa noted, "I still didn't understand about sexual pleasure
—I just liked what Tikay did and I liked playing that play." Nisa did not
want to share her lover either. She became fiercely jealous when Tikay
decided to "take a second wife," playing one day with Nisa and the next
day with the other girl.

Did our Cro-Magnon ancestors begin in childhood to play at marrying

and being unfaithful, then start in teenage to have infatuations?
Probably. American children play doctor, invent all sorts of other
softly sexual pastimes, and begin a series of puppy loves in their early
teens. These childhood games and teenage crushes are quite common
around the world; they probably emerged long ago.

Nisa's sex life as an adult—her several marriages and numerous love

affairs—strikes another familiar chord.

Around the age of sixteen or seventeen !Kung girls ' 'begin the moon"
or start to menstruate. Often they enter a marriage arranged by
parents at this time, although many marry somewhat before puberty
begins. Parents have definite opinions about a suitable match. They
generally select a man several years older than their daughter. Because
boys must go through secret initiation ordeals and also kill a large
animal before they become eligible to wed, grooms are often as much
as ten years older than their brides. 2 Parents also seek good hunters
and responsible men who are unmarried, rather than a married man
looking for a second wife.

Girls seem not to express opinions about whom they want to wed.
Young men, however, say they want young, industrious, attractive,
pleasant, fertile women. And when Shostak asked a man whether he
would marry a woman who was smarter than himself, the man replied,
"Of course. If I married her, she would teach me to be smart, too."

Nisa married before puberty. Her parents picked an older boy— but
responsible he was not. As was customary, after the bargaining and the
preliminary exchange of gifts, her wedding ceremony took place. At
sunset friends led the couple to their new marriage hut built some
distance from the camp. They carried Nisa over the threshold and laid
her down inside while her new husband sat outside the door. Then
Nisa's family and the relatives of the groom brought coals from their
hearths to start a new fire in front of the marriage hut, and everyone
sang and danced and joked until well after dark. The following
morning both wife and husband were ceremonially rubbed with oil by
their partner's mother—a normal celebration.

But Nisa had a bizarre wedding night—and a marriage that lasted only
a few angry days. Nisa had not begun to menstruate, and as is normal
among the !Kung, an older woman bedded with Nisa and the groom in
their marriage hut to reassure the pubescent bride. But Nisa's
chaperone had other ideas. She took the new husband as her own
lover, bumping Nisa with her ardent copulating. Nisa couldn't sleep.
When her parents heard of the goings-on two days later, they became
incensed. After announcing that the marriage was finished, they
stormed out of camp, taking Nisa with them.

Nisa's second marriage had other problems. Virginity is not a

prerequisite for betrothal among the !Kung; in fact, Shostak could find
no word for virginity in their language. But young girls often do not
consummate their marriages on their wedding night. They are so
much younger than their husbands that they act indifferent and reject
the groom. This was Nisa's style. Her breasts were just beginning to
develop; she was not ready to make love. And her refusal to copulate
was so persistent that, after several months of waiting, her second
husband, Tsaa, grew impatient and departed.

Then Nisa fell in love—with Kantla, a married man. Kantla and his
wife encouraged Nisa to become a co-wife. But she refused. !Kung
women do not like to share a husband; they say that the sexual
jealousy, the subtle favoritism, and the quarrels outweigh the
companionship and the help with domestic chores. Moreover, all three
partners often share the same tiny bedroom hut, so none of them has
any privacy. As a result of all these pressures, only about 5 percent of
all !Kung men maintain a long-term relationship with two wives
simultaneously. The other 95 percent amuse themselves endlessly,
telling stories about the complications that arise in these menages a
trois.

Nisa liked her third husband; eventually she loved him—and made
love to him. As she told Shostak, "We lived on and I loved him and he
loved me. I loved him the way a young adult knows how to love; I just
loved him. Whenever he went away and I stayed behind, I'd miss him.
... I gave myself to him, gave and gave."

Nisa soon had secret lovers, though. Kantla, her teenage sweetheart,
was the first of many. Sometimes she met a lover in the bush when her
husband went traveling or hunting; sometimes she entertained in her
hut when she was alone. If she visited relatives, she had lovers in other
settlements as well.

These rendezvous were both thrilling and dangerous; often they were
emotionally painful too. The !Kung believe that if you copulate with a
lover while pregnant you will abort your child. Nisa did abort a fetus
after a tryst with a lover. But she had more lovers anyway. And some
caused her a lot of jealousy, as well as that sickening feeling of despair
that jilted people suffer.

After her young husband died prematurely, Nisa became a single

mother with small children. She got meat from her father and other
relatives and seemed determined to raise her family without a spouse.
The single parent is not a phenomenon unique to Western family life.

Then one of Nisa's three paramours, Besa, persevered, and she

married for the fourth time. Nisa and Besa argued continually, usually
about sex. As she said to anthropologist Shostak, he was "like a young
man, almost a child, who lies with his wife day after day after day.
Don't her genitals get sore after a while?" Nisa would exclaim. "You're
just like a rooster," she shouted at Besa, ". . . At night, once is good;
once is enough; ... in one night you'd screw a woman to death!" 3 And
the arguments would escalate from there.

But Nisa and Besa lived together for several years, and they both had
extramarital affairs. Once Besa followed Nisa's tracks. Nisa had gone
out to collect firewood, and her footprints joined those of a man. Soon
Besa found his wife relaxing with her paramour beneath a tree. The
lovers began to tremble when they saw Besa's face. And after a lot of
bitter words an irate Besa ushered the couple back to camp where the
headman ordered beatings for both Nisa and her boyfriend. Nisa
refused hers, impudently offering to be shot with a bullet instead.
Then she stalked off. Her partner took his punishment, four hard
whacks.

Here, then, are patterns of human sexuality among the !Kung that are
common in Western cultures too: childhood frolic, teenage crushes,
youthful experiments at pairing up, then a lattice of marriages and
affairs during reproductive years. All of these patterns were probably
commonplace by the time our ancestors were painting murals of
stampeding beasts in the dark caves of France and Spain some 20,000
years ago.

The !Kung also have all sorts of sexual codes, another fundamental
element of the human mating game. Unlike the vast majority of
traditional peoples, the !Kung have no fear of menstrual blood or other
body fluids. They believe a woman must refrain from joining a

hunt while she bleeds. Men and women also generally avoid
intercourse during the height of menses. But spouses resume
copulating during its final days if they want to have a child. Menstrual
blood, they believe, combines with semen to make the infant.

And the !Kung love sex. "Sex is food," they say. They think that if a girl
grows up without learning to enjoy coitus, her mind doesn't develop
normally and she goes around eating grass. "Hunger for sex," they are
convinced, "can make you die."

Women have specific complaints about men's genitals, however. They

do not like a man's penis to be too big, since this hurts, or too full of
semen, since this is messy. So women discuss among themselves the
contents and the fit of their men's penises. And they demand orgasms.
If a man has "finished his work," he must continue until a woman's
work is finished too. Women should be sexually satisfied.

Men, of course, also have opinions about what constitutes good sex.
One summed up a bad rendezvous this way: "She's so wide, she's like a
Herero's mouth. 4 I just flounced around inside, but I couldn't feel
anything. I don't know what it was like for her, but today my back
hurts and I'm exhausted." Men also worry about their performance.
When they are unable to get an erection, they take medicines.

The !Kung love to kiss each other on the mouth. But they do not
perform cunnilingus. "A vagina would burn a man's lips and tongue,"
Nisa explains. Both women and men masturbate occasionally.
Everybody jokes about sex too; an afternoon sometimes becomes a
theater of witticisms, puns, and bawdy banter. Sexual dreams are
considered good. And women talk endlessly about their lovers while
they forage with close friends.

But some sexual etiquette is strict. Men and women always try to hide
their love affairs from their spouses. They feel that these trysts tap into
intense emotions—a "burning heart." Because spouses get jealous, it is
wise to hide one's passion for fear of violence at home. So paramours
try to meet in safe places—away from spying eyes and tattling tongues.
They say their love for their spouses is a different matter. After the
torrid sexual craving of early marriage has subsided, husband and wife
often become good friends, almost parents to each other.

Nisa's fifth husband plays this role. She says, "We fight and we love
each other; we argue and we love each other. That's how we live." And
she still sneaks into the bushes with her first love, Kantla, as well as
with other men.
Did our Cro-Magnon ancestors 20,000 years ago feel Nisa's zest for
sex? Did they have childhood frolics and teenage beaux as they and
their parents followed reindeer across the grasslands of France and
Spain? Did they marry after gruesome puberty rituals in caverns deep
below the ground? And, like Nisa, did they divorce and remarry when
things went wrong, as well as meet other lovers in secret spots to dally
through an occasional afternoon?

Probably, for the sexual escapades of traditional people living far from
the arid bush of southern Africa are not too different from those of
Nisa and her friends. Both cultures evidently reflect a world of
sexuality and romance that evolved long before contemporary times.

Love in the Jungle

"Good fish get dull, but sex is always fun," explains Ketepe, a
Mehinaku tribesman of central Brazil in the heart of Amazonia, to
anthropologist Thomas Gregor. Ketepe has a wife he says is dear. He
likes to take her and his children off on long fishing trips so that they
can spend time by themselves. When he tries to copulate with her in
his hammock after his children are asleep, someone nearby invariably
gets up to stoke the fire or goes outdoors to relieve himself; home is
not a private, sexy place. Moreover, Ketepe is often too busy to meet
his wife in the family garden to make love in the afternoon. Village life,
he says, is too hectic.

Ketepe is out of his hammock by dawn. Sometimes he and his wife go

to the river to bathe together, stopping along the trail to chat with
other couples. But on most days he joins a fishing party that leaves
soon after the sun comes up. His wife stays home to feed their children
and do other chores, women's work. By noon Ketepe returns, gives his
fish to his spouse, and joins his friends in the village

"men's house," which stands in the middle of the plaza.

The men's house is forbidden to women. None has ever entered—for

here the sacred flutes reside, hidden in a corner. If a woman accidently
sees these sacred objects, the men will waylay her in the forest and
gang-rape her, a practice common among several Amazonian societies.

The men's clubhouse is a jovial place. Amid the teasing, lewd jokes,
and chitchat, the men make baskets, work on their arrows, or decorate
their bodies with paints in preparation for "wrestling time" in
midafternoon. Then, after all the straining, grunting, dust, and cheers
that the matches regularly provoke, the triumphant and the defeated
all adjourn to their thatched homes which encircle the plaza playing
field. Here Ketepe sits around the family fire with his wife, eats manioc
bread heaped with a thick, spicy fish stew, and plays with his children
until they all retire to their hammocks and drift off to sleep.

The Mehinaku are busy. Women work as much as seven to nine hours
every day processing manioc flour, weaving hammocks, spinning
cotton, making twine, fetching firewood, and carrying tubs of water
from the nearby stream. Men do a good deal less. Fishing, trading,
helping in the family garden plot, and taking part in their many local
rituals take only about three and a half hours every day— except in the
dry season, when men work hard to clear the land for the new manioc
garden.

But the villagers also avidly engage in another time-consuming activity

—sex. "Sex," they say, "is the pepper that gives life and verve." And sex
liberally seasons daily life.

Soon after a Mehinaku child begins to walk, he or she joins other

youngsters in play groups in the plaza. As the tots roll and tussle on
the ground, adults tease them, saying, "Look, look, my boy is
copulating with your daughter." Children soon learn the game. As they
age, they, like !Kung children, begin to play a fantasy they call
marrying.

Little boys and girls sling hammocks to the trees beyond the village,
and while the girls stoke "pretend fires" or play at weaving cotton, boys
gather big leaves. These "make-believe fish" they proudly present to
their spouses to be cooked. (This, as you recall, is

symbolic courtship feeding.) Then, after the couple eat together, they
start another fantasy, "being jealous." Either the boy or girl sneaks into
the bushes, followed closely by a suspicious "spouse." When he or she
catches the other in a make-believe assignation, the cuckolded partner
gets angry.

Older children have seen their parents copulating in the family garden,
and they often abandon their innocent games for more-serious,
grown-up sexual sports. If parents catch their young trying to couple,
however, they taunt them unmercifully, so children learn early to be
prudent.

The carefree days of childhood sex end abruptly around age eleven or
twelve, when formal rules of sexual decorum demand that a boy enter
up to three years of seclusion. His father builds a wall of palm wood
staves and palm leaves at one end of the family house and hangs his
son's hammock behind this barrier. Here the teenager spends much of
his time, taking medicines that ensure that he will grow. The
adolescent must speak softly, follow several dietary restrictions, and,
above all, avoid any sexual encounters. Toward the end of his stay he
begins to sneak out and have affairs, however.

Hearing of a tryst, his father then tears down the partition. The boy
has become a man—equipped to go on long fishing trips alone, ready
to cut a garden and have a wife.

Now young men are free to indulge in sexual adventures, dalliances

that will become a normal part of adult life. Boys meet their girlfriends
in the woods to copulate. 5 They take little time for fore-play. 6 If a
couple find a spot where a thick log lies along the ground, they may
make love on top of it in the missionary position, with the man on top.
But comfortable logs are rare, the ground is often muddy, and insects
bite. So lovers normally sit facing each other; she is on top, her legs
wrapped around his hips.

In another common stance, he kneels and spreads his legs, holding her
thighs, buttocks, and lower back above the ground while she braces
her upper body with outstretched arms. Couples also like coitus in a
pool of quiet water—chest high is best for leverage, they say. And if
there is little time, lovers may copulate standing up; she

wraps one leg around her sweetheart while he raises her slightly off
her feet.

Sex is over after the man has ejaculated. Although the Mehinaku have
no word for female orgasm, they are well aware that the clitoris swells
during intercourse and is the seat of female pleasure. They liken the
female genitals to a face; the clitoris is the nose; it * 'sniffs out sexual
partners." But whether women have orgasms regularly is unknown to
anthropologists.

Soon after ending coitus, lovers take different paths back home— but
not without exchanging small gifts. Fish are currency for sex. After a
fishing expedition, a man often stops just prior to entering the village,
selects the oiliest of his catch, and sends it by a messenger to a lover.
He gives her a fish when they meet too. And lovers regularly give one
another other mementos, like a spindle of cotton, a basket, or some
shell jewelry. This teenage sexuality is so commonplace that when a
girl walks into the central plaza smeared with her boyfriend's body
paint, no one blinks; the Mehinaku see nothing wrong with premarital
coitus in the woods.

But parents get exceedingly upset if their unmarried daughter gets

pregnant. So soon after a girl emerges from her period of seclusion,
which begins at her first menses and lasts a year or more, she weds.
This is a special day. The new husband moves his hammock into his
wife's home and presents her with an abundant catch of fish. She
makes a particularly sweet batch of manioc bread. And over the course
of several days friends and kin exchange more gifts and sentiments.

The Mehinaku think a display of romantic love is silly, in poor taste, so

newlyweds are supposed to be reserved. Excessive thoughts of a loved
one, they believe, can attract deadly snakes, jaguars, and malevolent
spirits. Yet newlyweds sleep in the same large hammock and spend
their days together bathing, talking, and making love in the woods
outside the village. Young married people get jealous, too, particularly
if they catch a mate in an affair.
These outside dalliances generally begin soon after marriage. Central
to the rendezvous is something the Mehinaku call alligatoring. A man
who has established a liaison with a woman lies in wait for her in an
"alligator place," either in the woods behind her house, along one

of the trails that radiate from the village plaza, or near the gardens or
bathing spots. As a paramour walks by, her would-be lover smacks his
lips to beckon her, then propositions her as she draws near. She may
oblige or make a later date. Men say women are * 'stingy with their
genitals," although you might not agree. Tamalu, the most
promiscuous woman in the village, has fourteen lovers. On average,
Mehinaku men have four separate affairs at any given time.

These extramarital liaisons, Gregor reports, have a valuable social

function: village cohesion. The Mehinaku think that semen makes a
baby and that several copulations are needed to form a child. As men
report, baby making is a "collective labor project," something like a
fishing expedition. Thus every lover is convinced that a woman's
forthcoming infant is partly his. Occasionally a man publicly
recognizes the infant of a lover as his own and helps raise the child. 7
But spouses get jealous; as they say, they "prize each other's genitals."
So the real father of an infant rarely reveals himself. This belief about
baby making, however, silently links men and women in an elaborate
web of kinship ties.

Probably as a result of all these veiled sexual connections, adulterers

rarely get fined or beaten. In Mehinaku myths philanderers are hit,
dismembered, even put to death. But in real life only newlyweds make
a fuss or confront a spouse about infidelity—for an understandable
reason. Villagers often jeer a jealous husband, calling him a kingfisher,
because these birds flap about aimlessly, screeching and scolding.
Rarely does a man put aside his dignity to invite this scorn.

This is not to say that men and women with roving spouses do not
suffer; sexual tensions often lead to divorce. Marital discord is most
easily measured by where a couple sleep. If spouses have strung their
hammocks inches from one another, they probably are relatively
happy. These couples tend to talk about the events of the day after
their children are asleep, even copulate in one or the other's hammock.
As their quarrels escalate they string their hammocks farther apart;
sometimes they even sleep on opposite sides of the fireplace. And if a
wife becomes enraged, she may take a machete and cut down her
husband's bed. This often initiates divorce.

Although some single women with small children live in the village,
the vast majority of adults remarry. As far as the Mehinaku are

Fickle Passion

271

concerned, a man needs a wife to carry firewood, make manioc, and

mend his hammock, as well as for companionship and sex. Like the
!Kung and many other peoples, the Mehinaku regularly pursue the
mixed human reproductive strategy of marriage, adultery, divorce, and
remarriage.

Also like the !Kung, the Mehinaku love sex—a preoccupation that is
evident in their myriad beliefs. Fish and manioc, their staples, both
have sexual connotations. When women grate manioc tubers,
something they do most of the day, villagers say they are having sex.
Sex is the fabric of the daily litany of jokes. Men and women frequently
tease each other sexually. Women paint their bodies, pluck their pubic
hair, and wear a G-string through their vulvar lips and buttocks to
accentuate their genitals. The Mehinaku's myths, their songs, their
rituals, their politics, their dress, and their daily activities are all
saturated with sexual symbolism.

Yet their sexuality has a macabre undercurrent of fear. Gregor thinks

that Mehinaku men have rampant castration anxieties. In a study of
Mehinaku dreams, he discovered that 35 percent of the men worried
about the amputation or mangling of their genitals, a rate much higher
than that among American men. The Mehinaku are also scared of
impotence, for good reason. Gossip is endemic in this village of only
eighty-five people, and the extent of a man's sexual prowess quickly
becomes common knowledge. Hence dysfunction in the morning can
turn into "performance anxiety" by night.

Men are also terrified of women's menstrual blood. This dark, "foul-
smelling" secretion, they say, "races" into the water containers, the fish
stew, the manioc drinks, and the bread the moment a woman begins to
bleed. If this poison gets under a man's skin, they say, it turns into a
foreign body that causes pain until a shaman magically removes it. So
it is not unusual for a wife to throw a whole day's manioc flour into the
jungle if one woman in the house begins to menstruate in late
afternoon.

Sex, the Mehinaku believe, stunts growth, weakens a man, inhibits his
wrestling and fishing ability, and attracts evil spirits. Even thinking
about coitus while traveling may be dangerous to one's health.

A few men are cowed into abstention or impotence by these beliefs;

many others try to moderate their trysts; and some cast caution to the
wind and sow their seed whenever and wherever possible. But all the
Mehinaku, Gregor thinks, are troubled; they believe that too much sex,
sex at prohibited times, or sex with a partner in the wrong kin
relationship can cause disease, injury, even death. "Anxious
pleasures," as Gregor calls their dalliances, may be an understated
description of these people's sexual escapades.

Blueprint of Human Sexuality

Are Ketepe's sojourns in the woods beside the Amazon any different
from Nisa's rendezvous with Kantla on the Kalahari? Surely our Cro-
Magnon forebears grew up with sex around them, played at coitus
when they were children, went through ceremonies in teenage to
announce their adult sexual status, 8 and then entered a labyrinth of
marriages and affairs drenched with passion, rules, and superstition.

Cro-Magnon children almost certainly huddled in mammoth-bone

huts on bear rugs in the middle of the night, listening to their parents'
jostling and heavy breathing. In the morning they saw their parents
smile at each other. Occasionally after their father had left camp to
hunt, they saw mother vanish beyond the meadow with a man who
admired her and gave her gifts. And like their counterparts in many
other cultures, the more astute children knew what their parents were
up to and could rattle off the clandestine lovers of most of the grown-
ups in their band. They probably didn't tattle, though.

By age ten, Cro-Magnon youngsters must have begun their own

journeys into sex and love. 9 Little girls may have slipped off to a river
to bathe and play at "marrying" and "being jealous" with the boys.
They probably roamed in gangs, and by early teenage some had
started to play seriously at sex—long before puberty. 10 A few may
have loved one boy and then another, while others had a constant
"puppy love" for a single mate.

As teenagers they spent hours decorating themselves—as adolescents

do in many cultures—plaiting their hair, donning garlands of flowers
in order to smell sweet, wearing bracelets and pendants, and

decorating their tunics and leggings with fur, feathers, beads, and red
and yellow ocher. Then they strutted, preened, and showed off for one
another around the fire's glow.

Sometime before puberty our Cro-Magnon forbears began the

important rituals for adulthood that culminated in the caverns
beneath the earth. Here they entered the spirit world and danced and
sang in ceremonies designed to teach them to be brave and smart. And
as girls matured, they wed older boys who had established their
hunting skills.

When the reindeer started their annual migration in the spring, a

"newly married" couple and their friends must have set brushfires that
drove the giant beasts stampeding to their death in a steep ravine,
then butchered these creatures and carted home great chunks of meat.
Around a roaring blaze they reenacted the high points of the hunt.
Then some vanished from the firelight to hug and nuzzle in the woods.

During the summer months a wife probably tanned the hide of a bear
her husband had trapped; she roasted the fish he had caught in the
teeming streams; and she came home from gathering expeditions to
tell him where the horses were feeding and where the bees were
making honey. Her husband showed his wife new nutting groves and
fishing pools. Together they collected raspberries and blueberries. And
together they lay in secret spots on lazy afternoons.

In autumn, they may have gone together on trading expeditions to

where the waves pounded on the shore; here they exchanged fox hides
for purple shells and golden stones and saw old friends and relatives.
Then, as winter began to rage, they probably spent hours in the house,
drilling beads, carving figurines, and telling tales.

Some men and women married more than once. Some had extra
lovers. But they all had hopes and fears and sweethearts. For in their
souls they carried an ancient script—a template for human bonding:
"The family face," as Thomas Hardy called it, "the eternal thing in man
that heeds no call to die."

This basic human nature would be sorely challenged by what

happened next. By 10,000 years ago, the most recent Ice Age had
passed

into the present interglacial thaw. The land began to warm. Glaciers
that had gripped the earth as far south as modern London retreated
north, and the vast grasslands that stretched across Eurasia from
Europe to the South China Sea turned into miles and miles of deep,
thick woods. The woolly mammoth, the woolly rhino, and many other
large mammals died out, replaced by red deer, roe deer, boar, and all
the other modern creatures that still roam the European woods. Now
men and women were forced to hunt smaller game, catch more fish,
fell more birds, and collect lots of forest vegetables. 11

Soon some would settle down, domesticate wild seeds and tame wild
beasts. With this, the ancestors of Western men and women would
change the face of marriage with two new ideas: honor thy husband;
till death us do part.

15
"Till Death Us Do Part"

Birth ot Western Double Standards

To have and to hold from this day forward,

for better for worse,

for richer for poorer,

in sickness and in health,

to love and to cherish,

till death us do part.

— Book of Common Prayer (1549)

T,

hwack, thwack, thwack. A giant willow crackled, swayed, then

thundered down beside the lake. Trout, perch, pike, chub, and catfish
sped below the lily pads and darted among the bulrushes that lined the
lake with marsh. A forest boar dashed, stricken, from the underbrush.
Ducks and geese and mud hens lifted, flapping, from the reeds. Two
otters froze, listening, among the cattails. Someone new was in the
woods.

By 5000 B.C. central Europe was strewn with ponds and lakes and
streams, signatures of massive glaciers that had retreated north some
five thousand years earlier. Surrounding these glacial footprints were
deep, thick forests. First birches and pines had spread across the grass.
Then oaks, elms, spruce, and fir trees appeared. And by 5000 b.c.
beech trees, chestnut trees, ashes, and maples cloaked the river
valleys. Where oak trees spread their limbs, light bathed the forest

floor. Here thistles, stinging nettles, and other underbrush could

thrive, providing luxuriant hotels for teeming forest life. But where
beech trees took root, their thick leaves drank the sunlight, and only
ferns, wild onions, garlic, and grasses grew.

No more did mammoths and mastodons trumpet in the morning air.

Gone the open plains, the swaying grasses, low shrubs, and early-
morning chill. Instead, the August light danced off crystal lakes and
dew on leaves and bark. Solitary creatures like red deer, boars, elk,
and badgers picked among the forest browse. Roe deer and brown
bears hung along the rims of meadows where the hazel, raspberry,
strawberry, and elderberry bushes grew. And wildcats stalked rabbits
in fields of dandelions. The modern landscape and all the fauna that
now live in Europe had appeared. 1

New people lived here too: farmers.

Along the river valleys of Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland,

and the Low Countries, men and women had begun to fell the trees
and till the soil. In some clearings only a single farmstead stood.
Elsewhere tiny hamlets comprised four to ten squat, rugged wooden
buildings. In small "kitchen gardens" just outside their doors, these
first European cultivators grew peas, lentils, poppy plants, and flax.
They housed domesticated cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats in barns
attached to their homes. Dogs slept at their feet. And behind their
houses lay scattered fields of planted wheat.

How the first farmers in southwestern Germany got along with the
local hunter-gatherers we may never know. But archaeologist Susan
Gregg has an hypothesis based on ingenious data. 2

To reconstruct daily life along these riverbanks, she chose a

hypothetical village consisting of six households, with thirty-four
women, men, and children. Then, by meticulously studying the
landscape, the artifacts of this period, and the life cycles of wheat,
peas, pigs, and other plants and animals that lived here, Gregg pieced
together these first farmers' work schedule, their cultivating and
herding practices, and their estimated production and consumption of
meat, milk, grains, and vegetables per individual per year.

Included in her calculations were the precise amount of time needed

to plant each hectare of ancient wheat, the most suitable size for each
field and garden plot, and the crop losses due to snails, mice,

Till Death Us Do Part'

277

birds, and winter storage. To the equation she added the straw yield of
each harvest and the amount of pastureland, forest browse, and winter
fodder necessary to maintain the optimal number of cattle, sheep,
goats, and pigs. She also weighed the life span of these species, the
number of baby animals born each year, the abundance of wild
berries, greens, and condiments, the time spent to cut wood, and many
other factors in order to establish the most efficient way these farmers
might have lived.

Her conclusion: they planted wheat in spring, and they employed the
local foragers to help them seed their crop.

In exchange, she theorizes, the farmers gave these hired hands surplus
meat—ewes, calves, and piglets that had expired just after birth in
early spring, the leanest time of year for nomads. Then, in August
when the wheat ripened, Gregg thinks, the farmers hired the local
wanderers again to help cut the grain and carry straw to storage bins—
this time in exchange for milk. They may also have bartered with the
foragers for wild game, special flint and volcanic rocks for making
axes. Most important, they got information—news of other farmers
that these gypsies collected as they roamed.

The foragers, Gregg thinks, welcomed the farmers not only for their
meat, milk, and grain but also for their abandoned fields. These
clearings made gaps in the thick woods where new shrubs, herbs, and
grasses took hold and attracted wild deer and forest swine. So around
these fallow fields hunting may have been particularly good. More
important, with farm produce at hand, the foragers could forgo some
of their arduous long-distance fishing expeditions. They, too, could
begin to settle down.
No doubt these early contacts between farmers and foragers were not
all as friendly or as symbiotic as Gregg reports. Surely hunters and
planters sometimes fought. But eventually the latter prevailed. These
settlers would fundamentally alter ancient gender roles, initiating
sexual codes and attitudes regarding women that have been passed
down the centuries to us.

The Gentrification of Europe

How and why farming took root in Europe is avidly debated. 3 But
Western agriculture had its origins on hillsides that stretch like a
horseshoe from Jordan north through Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and
Turkey, then south through Iraq and Iran—the Fertile Crescent. Here,
by 10,000 B.C., in clearings among the pistachio and olive trees, the
cedars, junipers, oaks, and pines, wild grasses grew and feral cattle,
pigs, sheep, and goats all grazed.

Our nomadic ancestors had probably visited these meadows to hunt

and collect grains for millennia. As the hot, dry summers got even
hotter and drier, however, and as people clustered around the few
remaining freshwater lakes, food supplies grew short. And with time
these people began to store the grain they had collected and plant
seeds in an effort to intensify their harvest of these wild cereals. The
earliest farmers may have lived in the Jordan valley. But by 8000 B.C.
many more hamlets had taken root and early villagers of the Fertile
Crescent had begun to sow wild wheat, rye, and barley and herd sheep
and goats. 4 The hearth of Western civilization had been laid.

Agriculture then spread north and west. And as the custom of planting
grains and vegetables seeped into Europe along the river-banks from
Asia Minor, farming gradually became a way of life. For four million
years our ancestors had meandered across the ancient world in a
constant search for food. Now nomadism was becoming a thing of the
past. As archaeologist Kent Flannery summed it up, "Where can you
go with a metric ton of wheat?"

The Plow. There is probably no single tool in human history that

wreaked such havoc between women and men or stimulated so many
changes in human patterns of sex and love as the plow. Exactly when
the plow appeared remains unknown. The first farmers used the hoe
or digging stick. Then sometime before 3000 B.C. someone invented
the "ard," a primitive plow with a stone blade and a handle like a
plow's.

What a difference this made.

In cultures where people garden with a hoe, women do the bulk of the
cultivating; in many of these societies women are relatively powerful
as well. 5 But with the introduction of the plow—which required much
more strength—much of the essential farm labor became men's work.
Moreover, women lost their ancient honored roles as independent
gatherers, providers of the evening meal. And soon after the plow
became crucial to production, a sexual double standard emerged
among farming folk. Women were judged inferior to men.

Honor Thy Husband

The first written evidence of women's subjugation in farming

communities comes from law codes of ancient Mesopotamia dating
from about 1100 b.c. when women were described as chattels,
possessions. 6 One code indicated that a wife could be killed for
fornication but her husband was permitted to copulate outside of
wedlock—as long as he did not violate another man's property, his
wife. Matrimony was primarily for procreation so abortion was
forbidden. 7 And if a woman produced no children, she could be
divorced.

The treatment of women as child-producing property, subservient

beings, was not singular to people in the Middle East. These mores
sprang up among many farming folk. 8

In traditional agrarian India an honorable wife was supposed to throw

herself on the burning funeral pyre of her husband—a custom known
as suttee. In China an upper-class girl's toes (all but the big toe) were
curled underneath her foot and tightly bound when she was about
four, making it terribly painful to walk, impossible to run away from
her husband's home. During the golden age of ancient Greece, upper-
class girls were married off by the age of fourteen, ensuring they were
chaste on their wedding day. Among the Germanic peoples who
invaded classical Rome, women could be bought and sold. 9

"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord," the New

Testament bid. 10 This credo was not just a Christian view. In ancient
Sumeria, Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, classical Greece and

Rome, across preindustrial Europe, in India, China, Japan, and the

farming communities of North Africa, men became the priests,
political leaders, warriors, traders, diplomats, and heads of household.
A woman's sovereign was first her father and her brother, then her
husband, then her son.

As the fifth-century B.C. Greek historian Xenophon encapsulated a

wife's duties to her spouse, "Be therefore diligent, virtuous, and
modest, and give your necessary attendance on me, your children, and
your house, and your name shall be honorably esteemed even after
your death." 11

I do not wish to imply that the sexual double standard is unique to

farmers. Among some gardeners of Amazonia (who use the digging
stick rather than the plow) and some herding peoples of East Africa,
women are definitely subservient to men in most arenas of social life.
But a codified sexual and social double standard is not common to all
peoples who herd, who garden with a hoe, or who hunt and gather for
a living, whereas it does prevail in societies with the plow. 12

I also do not wish to suggest that all women in farm societies

experience the same degree of sexual restriction and social inferiority.
Women's status changed from century to century. Class, age, and
economic and social station affected women's position too.

Hatshepsut, for example, ruled Egypt in 1505 B.C., and she was only
one of several powerful Egyptian queens. Unlike the cloistered
housewives of classical Greece, courtesans were educated and highly
independent. Some urban, upper-class Roman women of the first and
second centuries a.d. became literary figures; others were politicians.
During the Middle Ages a number of nuns were educated power
brokers in the church; others wielded enormous influence in the
marketplace. In the 1400s some Islamic women of the Ottoman
Empire owned land and ships. And a sizable number of Renaissance
women of England and the Continent were just as well read as any
man.

Moreover, even where the sexual double standard is rigorously

maintained, it does not always guarantee informal power, day-to-day
influence. As we all know, the most insipid woman of a higher class

Till Death Us Do Part'

201

or a more prestigious ethnic group can sometimes dominate a man

from a lower social rung. Older women often control younger men.
Young, sexy women can manipulate much more influential men.
Sisters can rule brothers. And certainly wives can govern husbands.
Even where the sexual double standard has been extreme, men have
never universally dominated women—not in agricultural America, not
in the little farmhouses that hugged the Danube several thousand
years ago.

These exceptions notwithstanding, there is no question that during

our long European farming ancestry female sexuality was seriously
curbed; in almost all circumstances women became second-class
citizens as well. Unlike women in nomadic foraging societies who left
camp regularly to work and brought home precious goods and
valuable information, who traveled freely to visit friends and relatives
and ran their own love lives, a farming woman took her place in the
garden or the house—her duty to raise children and serve a man.

With plow agriculture came general female subordination, setting in

motion the entire panorama of Western sexual and social life.

Exactly how the plow and farm life led to changes in Western sexuality
has been debated for at least a hundred years. I will propose that
sedentary living, the need for lifelong monogamy, the rise of ranked
societies, the escalation of warfare, and a peculiar property of
testosterone, the male sex hormone, all played important roles. But
before I present my scenario for the evolution of the sexual double
standard in the European past, I would like to review some of the
major modern theories on the subject. Interestingly, lifelong
monogamy plays a part in each.

First, a reminder: matriarchy means political rule by women; ma-

triliny means tracing one's descent through the female line.

The Mother Right

One of the first to offer a scenario for women's fall from power was
Johann Jakob Bachofen, a German lawyer who wrote Das Mutter-
recht (The mother right) in 1861. In this tome Bachofen proposed that
humankind first lived in a state of sexual promiscuity in which

women were every bit as powerful as men. With the invention of

agriculture—by women—society then evolved its first form of social
order, the matriarchy.

Because no one could be positive which man had sired any specific
child, Bachofen reasoned, early agriculturalists reckoned descent
through the female line—matriliny. Because women were the sole
parents of the next generation, women were also honored; thus
women ruled—matriarchy. Society overthrew the "mother right" for
the "father right" during the Greek heroic age because of the adoption
of monogamy and because of changing religious precepts. Bachofen
based his theory for the fall of women on innumerable passages in
classical literature, texts that referred to ancient myths in which
women were once all-powerful. 13

The concept of the primitive matriarchy swept through nineteenth-

century intellectual circles. Soon the American anthropologist Lewis
Henry Morgan marshaled evidence to "prove" Bachofen's scenario for
the decline of women.
Because Morgan had lived among the Iroquois, who traced their
descent through the female line, he hailed these Indians as a living
relic of this primeval matriarchal stage of human social order. Like
Bachofen, Morgan believed that primitive promiscuity evolved into
matriarchal social life with the beginning of agriculture and that
matriarchy was supplanted by patriarchy as agriculture advanced.
Unlike Bachofen, he offered an economic explanation for the evolution
of male rule.

Private property, Morgan thought, was at the root of the sexual double
standard. So in his 1877 book Ancient Society, he proposed that as
agrarian men increasingly gained private ownership of communal
farmlands, they gained the power to overthrow matriarchal rule. Most
interesting, basic to Morgan's theory on the rise of patriarchy was the
origin of "exclusive pairing." Only as permanent monogamy evolved—
assuring early farmers of paternity—could they seize power and begin
to pass their property to their male heirs.

Friederich Engels elaborated on Morgan's scheme—and advanced his

own economic formula for the decline of women's rights. In the
earliest days of agriculture, Engels proposed, property was
communally owned; women and men lived in matrilineal kin groups

rather than in nuclear families headed by males; paternity was

relatively unimportant; divorce and philandering were commonplace;
women gathered at least as many subsistence foods as men did; and
women ran the extended family home. Then, as men and women
began to grow crops and herd animals, men's roles as farmers and
shepherds became increasingly important. With time, men emerged as
owners of the only valuable property—the soil and these beasts. Men
then used their power as property owners to institute patriliny and
patriarchy.

Like Bachofen and Morgan before him, Engels believed that

monogamy—which he defined as strict female fidelity to a single
lifetime partner—was central to the decline of women's power.
Monogamy evolved to ensure paternity, he wrote. And as monogamy
undermined a wife's ties and obligations to a wider kin group,
monogamy ushered in slavery for women. He called this transition
"the world historical defeat of the female sex." 14

Paradise Lost? Scientists have now proven these early theories largely
wrong—but somewhat right. Modern thinking started after the turn of
the century, when anthropologists began to notice that no extant
society was matriarchal; most were not even matrilineal. 15 Since then
anthropologists have studied many more cultures and have still not
found a single matriarchal culture. Moreover, there is no
archaeological evidence that a primitive matriarchy ever existed
anywhere on earth.

Some modern feminists do not agree. They argue that the female
figurines on ancient pots and the feminine gods and other feminine
motifs found in archaeological and traditional contemporary societies
are evidence of primitive matriarchies. 16 But this reasoning is also
undermined by data. Of the ninety-three societies surveyed by
sociologist Martin Whyte in the 1970s, eighty-three had no folk beliefs
that women were once all-powerful. And in those cultures where
people did worship female gods and recount myths of female
dominion, no female political supremacy existed. 17

There is, however, some truth to the belief that women were once
much more powerful As was discussed in chapter 11, the vast majority
of hunting-gathering peoples are (and probably always were) relatively
egalitarian. No extant hunting-gathering, foraging, or garden-

ing society has a rigid codified sexual double standard. And women
have had inferior status in societies that use the plow for agriculture.
18 So, although there probably never were any primitive matriarchies,
Bachofen, Morgan, and Engels were all partly correct: a relative
equality between the sexes was probably the rule in many ancient,
preagricultural societies, and this balance of power between the sexes
indeed became pronounced inequality sometime soon after the plow
was introduced.

In the 1970s the Marxist-feminist anthropologist Eleanor Leacock

streamlined all of these ideas with yet another scenario. She wisely
dropped the idea of the primitive matriarchy. But she marshaled data
from around the world to prove that in prehistoric band societies men
and women were, in fact, largely equals (see chapter 11). And she
hypothesized that as farming men began to make trade goods, sell
trade items, and monopolize trade networks, farmers' wives became
subordinate to their husbands. 19 Like Bachofen, Morgan, and Engels
before her, Leacock also proposed that the emergence of the
monogamous nuclear family as the vital economic unit (in conjunction
with sedentary living and the plow) was central to the deterioration of
women's lives.

"Big Men"

"All thought is a feat of association," Robert Frost once said. So I wish

to borrow from all these lines of reasoning, add a biological
perspective, and propose a slightly fuller hypothesis for the fall of
women.

To begin, then, with what we've got. The plow was heavy; it needed to
be pulled by a large animal; it required the strength of men. As
hunters, husbands had supplied the luxuries that made life thrilling as
well as some of the daily fare; but as tillers of the soil, they became
critical to survival. Women's vital role as gatherers, on the other hand,
was undermined as our ancestors began to rely less on wild plants for
food and more on domesticated crops. Long the providers of
substantial daily fare, women now assumed the secondary tasks of
weeding, picking, and preparing the evening meal. So

anthropologists agree that as men's farm labor became essential to

survival, the primary role in subsistence shifted from women to men.

This one ecological factor—the skewed division of labor between the

sexes in subsistence and men's control of the vital resources of
production—is sufficient to explain women's decline from social
power. Those who own the purse strings rule the world. But other
factors conjoined to create women's fall. With the advent of plow
agriculture, neither husband nor wife could divorce. They worked the
land together. Neither partner could dig up half the soil and depart.
They had become tied to their mutual real estate and to one another—
permanent monogamy.

How the plow and permanent monogamy contributed to the decline of

women's worlds is best understood in conjunction with a third
insidious phenomenon of farming peoples—rank. For millennia "big
men" must have arisen among our nomadic ancestors during hunting,
foraging, and trading expeditions. But hunter-gatherers have strong
traditions of equality and sharing; for the vast majority of our human
heritage, formal ranks did not exist. To organize the yearly farming
harvest, however, and store grain and fodder, distribute surplus food,
oversee long-distance, systematic trade, and speak for the community
at regional gatherings, chiefs arose.

There is some evidence of rank in the European archaeological record

as early as fifteen thousand years ago; some graves had much fancier
goods than others. Village headmen had thus probably gained power
with the rise of these first seasonal, nonagricultural communities.
Moreover, along the Danube by 5000 b.c. one home in a hamlet was
often larger than the rest, so social stratification had surely begun by
then. Then with the subsequent spread of plow agriculture and village
life, political organization grew more and more complex—and
undoubtedly more hierarchial as well. 20

So now we have sedentism, permanent monogamy, and rank.

Another factor that surely played a role in the decline of women's

social and sexual rights was war. As villages proliferated and
population density increased, people were obliged to defend their
property, even extend their landholdings when they could. Warriors
became invaluable to social life. And as anthropologist Robert
Carneiro points out, everywhere in the world where fighting enemies is
impor-

tant to daily living, men come to increase their power over women.

Men's more-important economic roles as farmers, couples that were

obliged to remain together on their mutual home range, villagers who
needed chiefs to organize their work, and societies that needed
warriors to defend their soil—what a volatile mixture. Here was a
perfect opportunity for one sex to gain authority over the other.

Indeed, that's just what happened. Patriarchy sprang up across

Eurasia and seeded deep into the soil.

But why patriarchy instead of matriarchy? Why didn't women seize

the rule? The brute force necessary to drive the plow and the strength
required in warfare both suffice to answer this question. But I think at
least one more primary factor was involved in the florescence of
patriarchy and the decline of women's worlds—biology.

In every single society where ranks are prevalent, men hold the
majority of the authoritative roles. In fact, in 88 percent of ninety-
three societies canvassed, all local and intermediate political leaders
are men; in 84 percent of these cultures men hold all of the top
leadership positions in the kin group too. 21 This is not because
women are barred from these positions. In many of these cultures—
such as the United States—women are permitted to seek influential
positions in government. Today greater numbers of women are indeed
running for office. But even now women do not seek political positions
with anywhere near the regularity that men do.

To explain this enormous gender difference in who seeks and obtains

political rank, sociologist Steven Goldberg has proposed that men are
neuro-endocrinologically wired, by means of testosterone that sexes
the fetal brain, for a greater drive to seek status; he calls this drive
"male attainment." Thus, because of their biological drive to acquire
rank, men more regularly give up time, pleasure, health, safety,
affection, and relaxation to attain positions of rank, authority, and
power. 22

This is a dangerous idea. Most feminists will certainly reject it, as will
anyone who dismisses the biological factors involved in human ac-

tion. But as one who takes science seriously, I cannot ignore the
possibility that biology plays a role in the acquisition of rank. In fact,
several lines of reasoning support this conclusion.

The brain is indeed sexed before birth by fetal hormones. There is a

clear link between testosterone and aggressive behavior in animals
and people. 23 High rank is also associated with high levels of male
hormones in men 24 and monkeys. 25 Last, women in many cultures
assume more leadership positions after their childbearing years are
over. 26 There certainly are cultural reasons for this. Released from
the constant chores of rearing young, postmenopausal women are
certainly liberated to pursue activities outside the home. But there
may be a biological reason for their assertiveness as well. Levels of
estrogen decline with menopause, unmasking levels of testosterone.
Nature has concocted a chemical that possibly contributes to the drive
for rank.

There may be another chemical in the cocktail too. Serotonin, another

of the brain's molecules. The highest-ranking male vervet monkey in a
troop, scientists have established, has consistently higher levels of
serotonin in his blood. Male monkeys that rise in dominance exhibit a
natural rise in levels of blood serotonin. And when a monkey's rank
drops, his natural levels of serotonin decrease. 27 Even when male
monkeys are artificially administered serotonin, their rank goes up;
and male monkeys given drugs that inhibit the secretion of serotonin
experience a drop in rank. 28

Among human males the same correlations prevail. Officers in college

student groups show higher levels of serotonin in their blood than do
nonofficers, as do leaders of college sports teams. 29 These simple
correlations seem not to be exhibited in women. And scientists
preliminarily conclude that women and female nonhuman primates
exhibit a more complex behavioral and physiological system of
dominance.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a rather direct correlation between

testosterone and rank—as well as some evidence that other brain
substances contribute to the biology of hierarchy.

"Till Death Us Do Part"

So our European ancestors settled down to farm. They paired for life.
They plowed and warred and traded. And gradually men's new jobs as
plowmen and warriors became crucial to survival, while women's vital
roles as gatherers dwindled in importance. Then, as ranks emerged
and men scrambled for these positions, women's formal power
vanished. For every farmer's foot was now sown into the soil. A
mixture of immobility, skewed economic roles, permanent monogamy,
an emerging ranked society, the burgeoning of warfare, and, quite
possibly, a peculiarity of testosterone and other physiological
mechanisms set in motion systems of patriarchy seen in agrarian
societies. With patriarchy, women became possessions to be coveted,
guarded, and exploited—spawning vicious social precepts known
collectively as the sexual double standard. These credos were then
passed on to you and me.

The common belief that men have a higher sex drive than women, the
conviction that men are more adulterous, the tradition of feminine
chastity at marriage, and the long-held assumption that women are
often weak, stupid, and dependent are rooted deep in the plowman's
dirt. Of all the social changes that farm life produced, however, the
most dramatic were our patterns of divorce.

Divorce rates were very low through much of our agrarian past. In the
ancient lands of Israel, for example, divorce was rare. 30 The classical
Greeks reveled in almost any sexual experiment, but they prohibited
sexual practices (like bringing a courtesan into the home) that
threatened the stability of the family. 31 Among the Greeks of the
Homeric age, divorce was permitted but uncommon. Marital
dissolution was low in Rome's early days, when the vast majority of
citizens were farmers; only as cities bloomed and some women
became wealthy, independent—and urban—did divorce rates soar
among the upper classes. 32

Early Christian fathers regarded marriage as a necessary remedy for

fornication; to them bachelors and spinsters, celibates and virgins

in honor of the Lord were far more pure. On the subject of divorce they
were divided. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put
asunder," Jesus had advised. 33 Yet different passages of the Bible
sent conflicting messages and some scholars think early Christian men
had both the legal and religious right to divorce a wife for adultery or
for being a nonbeliever. Regardless, divorce was never common
among farming Christians, either before or after the decline of Rome.
34

When Teutonic peoples overran Roman soil, they brought customs of

their own. Divorce and polygyny were permitted among the ruling
classes of prefeudal Germany. Pre-Christian Celtic and Anglo-Saxon
peoples also allowed divorce and remarriage. Given the genetic payoffs
of polygyny for men, it is no surprise that those with money took
several wives. But what evidence is available suggests that the rate of
divorce was low among European peasant farmers during the dark
centuries following the fall of Rome. 35

During the ninth century feudalism spread across Europe from its
birthplace in France. As was customary in this system, feudal lords
granted land to their vassals in exchange for allegiance and military
duty. Each vassal then subgranted his lands to tenants in return for
special services. Theoretically, vassals and tenants "held" these
homesteads rather than owning them, but in actuality vassals and
tenants passed these land grants—and the land—from generation to
generation within their families. Under feudalism, therefore, marriage
continued to be the only way most men and women could acquire soil
and secure it for their heirs.

European couples could have a marriage annulled on grounds of

adultery, impotence, leprosy, or consanguinity—which the rich and the
well connected indeed did. 36 A spouse could also leave a mate if a
properly constituted court pronounced a judicial separation that
ordered partners to live apart. But this agreement carried a restriction:
neither party was permitted to remarry. 37 In that case, who was to
look after the goods, the lands, the animals, the house? Without a
mate, a farmer could not make ends meet. In feudal Europe only the
rich could afford to divorce a spouse.

Permanent monogamy. What nature and economics had prescribed

for plowmen, Christian leaders sanctified. Augustine is gen-

erally thought to be the earliest church leader to regard marriage as a

holy sacrament, but as the centuries passed, most Christian authorities
came to agree with him. Divorce became impossible under any
circumstances for members of the Roman Catholic church. 38
Although Catholic doctrine continued to make provisions for
annulment and separation, lifelong marriage—a requisite of farm
living— became a mandate straight from God.

With the rise of cities and trade in Europe in the tenth and eleventh
centuries, women entered all sorts of occupations. In medieval London
in the 1300s women were textile dealers, grocers, barber-surgeons,
silk workers, bakers, beer makers, servants, embroiderers,
shoemakers, jewelers, hatmakers, and craftsmen of many other kinds.
Not surprisingly, some women like the Wife of Bath, Chaucer's bawdy
entrepreneur, married five husbands in succession. But she was
exceptional. A woman normally worked along with her spouse; she
was socially subservient to him too. In fact, a woman's business debts
were her husband's responsibility—a woman was not "a free and
lawful person." 39 Predictably divorce was uncommon in medieval
European cities.

This pattern of low divorce persisted. After the Reformation marriage

became a civil contract, rather than a sacrament, for Protestants. So
beginning in the 1600s women in non-Catholic countries could obtain
a divorce from civil authorities. 40 In fact, divorce rates clearly
fluctuated throughout the centuries following Christ's call for
permanent monogamy. Where married men and women could leave
each other, they did. But divorce rates remained notably low in
Scandinavia and the British Isles, across the farmlands of Germany,
France, the Low Countries, Spain, and Italy, through Hungary and the
other eastern European cultures, in Russia, Japan, China, and India,
and in Moslem farm societies of North Africa until the Industrial
Revolution began to erode farm life. 41

And when a spouse died (and where remarriage was permitted), a

farmer took a new bride. Men who owned land often wed a few days
after the mourning period ended. Remarriage by widows was widely
discouraged in preindustrial European farming cultures, perhaps
because this jeopardized the pattern of inheritance. But a great many
women took a new husband anyway.

The realities of farm life required pairing.

Not all of our farming ancestors believed in God. Not all of these men
and women were happily wed. Not all were excited about remarriage
either. But the vast majority of these people lived by the sun and by the
soil. These farming men and women were tethered to their land and to
one another—forever.

Not until factories emerged behind the barns of agricultural Europe

and America did men and women start to regain their independence.
Now patterns of sex and love and marriage begin to swing forward to
the past.

16

Future Sex

Forward to the Past

And the end of all our exploring

Will he to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time.

— T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets

J. bus the sum of things is ever being replenished and mortals live one
and all by give and take. Some races wax and others wane, and in a
short space the tribes of living things are changed, and like runners
hand on the torch of life." 1 Lucretius, the Roman poet, spoke of the
unbrokenness of human nature—those dispositions that emerged with
our nativity and can be seen in men and women around the world
today. Among them is our human reproductive strategy, the way we
mate and reproduce.

Day by decade by century our ancestors fell in love, paired,

philandered, abandoned each other, and paired again, then settled
down as they got older or had more young—selecting for this blueprint
of human romantic life. Not everyone conformed to this multipart
sexual script. Individuals differed in the past as they do today and will
two thousand years from now. But these natural patterns

prevail around the world. Stomp as culture may, she will not wipe
them out.

Culture can, however, change the incidence of adultery and divorce,

the number of people who play out this ancient text. Farm living, for
example, produced permanent monogamy in our elastic tribe. Will
American divorce rates go up and up? 2 Will marriage survive? What
kinds of families will we see? Where are we headed now?

As you know, all sorts of sociological, psychological, and demographic

forces contribute to divorce rates. "Nomadism" is one. The vast
majority of us have moved away from home; our parents live in
different cities, often with new partners. So the wide network of family
and community support that couples need when times are tough has
vanished, increasing the likelihood of divorce. Those who choose
partners with different habits, different values, different interests, and
different leisure activities are more likely to divorce. Urbanism and
secularism are associated with marital dissolution. The contemporary
emphasis on individualism and self-fulfillment has also contributed to
the rising incidence of divorce.

But of all the major factors that promote marital instability, perhaps
the most powerful in America today can be summed up in two words:
working women. 3 Divorce rates are high in marriages where the
husband's income is markedly lower than the wife's. 4 Men in higher
socioeconomic classes maintain more stable marriages because they
tend to have more money than their spouses. And generally women
with a good education and a high-paying job divorce more readily. 5
Money spells freedom. Working women have more of it than those
who mind the house. And demographers regularly cite this correlation
between working women and high divorce rates.

This is not to blame working wives for the high American divorce rate.
Although 60 percent of today's divorces are filed by women,
demographers will never know who actually leaves whom. But where
women work outside the home and bring back staples, luxuries, or
money, people caught in difficult relationships can leave each other.
And they do.

The Road to Modern Divorce

The Industrial Revolution launched this trend of more women in the

workplace. Tracing this single phenomenon in the United States
explains much about the pulse of modern family life.

As soon as hamlets of European settlers began to dot the Atlantic

coast, American women began to make money outside the home by
selling their surplus soap, their jars of raspberry preserves, their
scented candles, and home-baked pies. A few spinsters set up shops to
sell books or imported clothes. Some widows became innkeepers or
land agents. But the vast majority of women kept a home.

By 1815, however, textile mills had begun to rise behind the cherry
trees and chicken yards and some young women had begun to leave
home for factory work. They sought regular pay and shorter work
hours—time and money to spend thumbing through catalogs for store-
bought clothes. Even married women began to take home piecework
for extra cash. America was turning industrial. And around the middle
of the nineteenth century the divorce rate started to rise.

Divorce rates have increased by fits and starts ever since. In the mid-i
800s cheap labor—immigrant men—stole women's jobs. This vast new
work force, the flight of American men from the farm into the factory,
the belief that working women drive men's wages down, and the
conviction that more children produce a larger tax base, a stronger
military, a larger consumer market, and more bodies in church on
Sunday then popularized the dictum "A woman's place is in the home."
6 By 1900 only about 20 percent of the women were in the labor force,
most of them immigrants, youths, and singles. Nevertheless, more
married women worked than in preceding decades—and divorce rates
rose some more.

The twentieth century saw a periodic escalation of these social trends

launched by the industrial age: more working women, more divorce. 7
With one exception. America's emergence as a superpower after World
War II brought an era of marital stability some tend to think of as a
golden age.

Actually the 1950s was the most unusual decade of our century.
Millions of women left the labor market as war veterans returned
home and claimed their jobs in industry. Tuition loans, cheap life
insurance for servicemen, government-guaranteed morgages, tax
advantages for married couples, and the expanding economy provided
economic opportunities for postwar husbands. These young men and
women had also grown up during the Great Depression, when family
life was particularly turbulent. They valued a stable home.

So in the 1950s Americans settled down. Adlai Stevenson summed up

the times in 1955, advising graduating women of Smith College to
"influence man and boy" through the "humble role of housewife/' 8

America took Stevenson's advice. Homemaking became fashionable.

Women's magazines warned brides of the dangers of mixing work with
motherhood. Psychiatrists described women with careers as struggling
with "penis envy." And social critics proclaimed that mothering and
keeping house were women's natural roles. Anthropologist Ashley
Montagu delivered the coup de grace, saying, "No woman with a
husband and small children can hold a full-time job and be a good
homemaker at one and the same time." 9

Not surprisingly, men and women married younger in the 1950s than
in any other twentieth-century decade; 20.2 was the median age for
women and 22.6 for men. 10 The divorce rate remained unusually
steady. Remarriage rates declined. And the birthrate rose to its
twentieth-century high—the baby boom. In 1957 the bumper crop of
infants peaked; the spreading suburbs became a cradle.

"Clap hands, clap hands until Daddy comes home, because Daddy's
got money and Mommy's got none." This nursery rhyme became
obsolete in the early 1960s, when historic trends sparked by the
Industrial Revolution resumed: more working women, more divorce.
The wide use of new kinds of contraceptives like "the pill," as well as
several other forces, could have played a role. 11 But demographers
point to young wives as a key factor in soaring rates of marital
instability.

Many of these women, however, were not looking for careers.

They wanted pink-collar jobs, positions to supplement the family

income or buy a dishwasher, a washing machine and dryer, an
automobile, or a TV set. Their goal: the good life. And American
employers embraced them. Here were women who spoke English,
women who could read and write, women willing to take part-time,
go-nowhere, dead-end, boring jobs. As anthropologist Marvin Harris
wrote of the times, "With the generation of immigrant coolies fading
from the scene, the dormant white American housewife was the
service-and-information employer's sleeping beauty." 12

You know what happened next; the women's movement erupted. More
important to our story, America resumed its modern course: between
i960 and 1983 the number of working women doubled. 13 Between
1966 and 1976 the divorce rate doubled too. 14 And in 1981 remarriage
rates hit a modern high. 15

After many centuries of permanent monogamy among our farming

forebears, the primitive human pattern of marriage, divorce, and
remarriage had emerged again.

Will this spiraling divorce rate ever end? Demographer Richard

Easterlin thinks the divorce rate is now stabilizing, although his critics
disagree. Easterlin predicts that in the 1990s America will return to
another era like the 1950s—marked by earlier marriage, more
children, and less divorce. 16

Easterlin points out that behind the baby boom came a baby bust
generation, born in the late 1960s and 1970s. And he reasons that
because there are fewer people in this bust cohort, its young men will
get into their preferred colleges, land better jobs, and advance up the
corporate ladder faster in the 1990s. Because these young men will
secure good incomes, they will be able to afford to marry earlier and
have more children. And because they will have financial security and
larger families, they will divorce less readily. Hence Easterlin thinks
that the trends of the 1950s will repeat themselves.

We will see. After a divorce peak in 1979 and 1981, divorce rates did
decrease slightly, and they have remained relatively stable since 1986.
17 So Easterlin may be proven right. But he has based his predictions
on the coming scarcity of young men. I would add that an inbred
characteristic of human nature, in conjunction with a fluke of
contemporary American demography, will also contribute to marital
stability.

Risk of divorce is greatest among men and women in their twenties. 18

Because our newspapers and magazines regularly write about people
who divorce in middle age, we tend to think that most people divorce
while in their thirties, fourties, or fifties. Not so. As you recall from
chapter 5, divorce is for the young. With advancing age, your chances
of divorcing becomes less and less.

This simple fact of human nature takes on unusual significance when

coupled with the reality that the boomers have come of age. A
staggering seventy-six million babies were born in the United States
between 1946 and 1964. The bulge. These baby boomers are traveling
through American society like a pig moving through a python— visibly
changing our culture as they get older. When the boomers were young,
advertisers invented baby-proof bottles for medicine shelves. When
they were teenagers, rock V roll music became the rage. When they
entered their twenties, the sexual revolution (and the drug revolution)
occurred. And now that the boomers are in their thirties and early
forties, day care, working women, and abortion are major issues in the
news.

So what the boomers do, America seems to do. And next the boomers
will settle down. Why? Because these boomers are way past the age of
highest divorce risk. Many are having children too— further reducing
their likelihood of parting. As Margaret Mead once said, 'The first
relationship is for sex; the second is for children; the third is for
companionship." The boomers seem to be entering this final state,
searching for a soul mate. Most will marry or remarry and remain
together. It's in their genes.

And as tiny aging boomer families seed across America, these couples
may help usher in about two decades of relative marital stability.

Through the Looking Glass of Prehistory

"If you can look into the seeds of time and say, which grain will grow,
and which will not, speak then to me," Shakespeare wrote. Predicting
the future is dangerous. But the human animal has been built by
evolution to do certain things more easily than others. Using our
prehistory as a guide, I will venture a few more guesses about the

future of male/female relationships. What can the past say about

tomorrow?

Women will continue to work.

Sociologist Eli Ginzberg recently hailed the entry of women into the
work force as "the single most outstanding event of our century/' 19
But are working women really so astonishing? Female chimpanzees
work. Female gorillas, orangutans, and baboons work. For millennia,
hunting-gathering women worked. On the farm women worked. The
housewife is more an invention of privileged people in ranked societies
than a natural role of the human animal. The double-income family is
part of our human heritage.

So if the nineties woman retreats to keeping house, as some predict,

she will, I suspect, be no more than another blip on demographic
charts—as she was in the 1950s. From the anthropological perspective,
working women are here to stay, tomorrow and a thousand years from
now.

What more can yesterday say about tomorrow?

I do. I do. I do. "Marriage," Voltaire said, "is the only adventure open
to the cowardly." Indeed, Americans participate with gusto. Today
over 90 percent of all American men and women eventually wed. And
although our newspapers tell us that fewer men and women are willing
to take the plunge, marriage rates have changed very little through our
history. In fact, the percentage of "never married" people was almost
the same in 1989 as in 1890, almost a hundred years ago. 20

Americans aren't even marrying any later—as we are often told. 21 In

1990 the median age at which a bride wed was 23.9 and her groom's
age was 26.1; in 1890 a woman married at the median age of 22.0 and
a man wed at 26.1. 22 Because Americans tend to compare present
marriage patterns with those of the 1950s, when men and women did
indeed wed much earlier, we think the current marriage age is a new
phenomenon. It is not. Furthermore, despite claims that marriage is
passe, marriage is a badge of Homo sapiens.

To bond is human. This drive evolved some four million years ago—
and if we survive as a species, it should be with us four million years
from now.

Women will continue to have fewer children too—another hallmark of

our past. Large families are contrary to human nature. !Kung women
and mothers in other traditional societies bear about four or five
babies each, but only about two offspring live to adulthood. Thus
families were small during our long nomadic ancestry. On the farm,
however, infants were cheap to raise, and little hands were needed in
the gardens, fields, and barns. So in the early 1800s American women
bore, on average, seven to eight infants. Only with industrialization
did birthrates begin to slide as urban parents began to see children as
more expensive. 24
Today American women bear an average of 1.8 infants that live to
maturity. 25 Thus, as children have became unnecessary as
farmhands, women are reverting to a more natural breeding pattern—
small families.

Why should this pattern change?

Women have begun to space their children farther apart as well. 26 As

you know, in societies where women gather or garden for a living, they
tend to bear their young about every four years. This gives the mother
uninterrupted time with her infant before she bears a second child.
Today this trait, wide birth spacing, is returning.

Bravo. Several studies indicate that children in smaller families

achieve higher test scores in school. They advance farther up the
education pyramid. And they get more attention from their parents as
they mature. 27 Wider birth spacing is healthy for parents too. Men
and women were not built by evolution to cope with two infants
simultaneously. Having fewer children at greater intervals should not
only increase their educational potential but reduce the incidence of
child abuse among parents who cannot deal with the problems of
rearing more than one youngster at a time.

To review, then. Knowing what we do of human nature and the forces

of modern culture, we may plausibly propose that, as the twenty-first
century begins, our ancient human reproductive script will remain
basically unaltered: young couples will fall in love and form pair-
bonds; many will then leave each other and find new mates. The older
people get, the more children they produce, and

the longer they remain together, the more likely spouses will be to
mate for life. Women and men will continue to marry later than in the
1950s and have fewer children, more widely spaced apart. Women will
continue to work outside the home, keeping divorce rates relatively
high. Serving to counterbalance this trend will be all the couples who
marry later and all the boomers who settle down. Hence relative
marital stability should reign.
This is not to suggest that the boomers or any of the rest of us will
return to the life of TV's Ozzie and Harriet, the consummate 1950s
couple. On the contrary, in 1987 only 10 percent of all American
families were of the traditional agrarian type, in which the father
brought home all of the income and the mother stayed home to rear
the children. Today mothers go to work. And some observers say we
are entering an age of new kinds of partnerships.

We are not. Take hypergamy, for example. This practice of "marrying

up" is indeed dying out. On the farm a girl's primary goal was to marry
well; marriage was her only source of economic and social gain. But
today a woman's career path is marked by her education and her job.
Women still tend to marry men with higher salaries, because men still
generally make more money. But women no longer need to marry up
to get ahead. They can choose partners for companionship and not for
financial and social gain.

Is this so very new? Throughout our hunting-gathering past, women

and men undoubtedly also wanted to marry well. And certainly
spouses were somewhat dependent on each other to make ends meet.
But a woman's partner was not her entire economic and social future;
she had her kin, her friends, her own productive and socially valuable
livelihood. So in our ancient past, women in most societies were able
to chose their partners without worrying about upward mobility—just
as more and more women have begun to do again today.

Perhaps as hypergamy declines, we will see more older wives with

younger husbands and growing numbers of men and women marrying
into different ethnic, religious, economic, or social groups.

Commuter marriages are not altogether new either. Today it is

common to know a woman working in New York who is married to a

man who lives in Boston or Chicago. These relationships have both

perquisites and drawbacks. Some aging boomers with high-power jobs
find commuter marriages a relief—at first. Partners can ease into the
commitment. Neither spouse's career is threatened. No property needs
to be melded. And some boomers say that commuting keeps the
marriage fresh.

From an anthropological perspective, they are partly correct. The

human animal is not built to live with a mate cheek by jowl around the
clock. Among many traditional peoples, spouses often do not even
interact until they retire to share their thoughts before they sleep.
Moreover, men go off hunting for days, whereas women leave home to
visit relatives for weeks. These geographic barriers can enliven a
relationship. They also help modern couples separate work from
pleasure—creating "dating time," unencumbered hours when spouses
can leave their office troubles on the desk and court.

But commuting does run contrary to other natural human tendencies.

Young couples need to spend time together to establish their roles,
their jokes, their intimacies, their goals. Commuter marriages inhibit
this bonding process. Older people suffer the consequences of
commuting too. As a friend in his mid-fifties said to me, "In the get-
ahead years you are always thinking about tomorrow. But as you age,
you become more interested in today. You want to come home at night
and share your thoughts with your sweetheart this evening, not next
weekend." Another problem with commuting is the likelihood of
philandering; the human animal has a taste for infidelity that
commuter marriages facilitate.

In the jazz age of the 1920s, "advanced" social theorists suggested that
men and women engage in "visiting marriages"—that couples should
maintain separate households and meet by appointment only. 28 A
few did. So commuter marriages are not new. They were around in the
1920s and they were probably prevalent a million years ago.

"Living in Sin' 7

In her famous Redbook article of July 1966, Margaret Mead proposed

that Americans should forge another seemingly unconventional
wedding pattern: marriage "in two steps." 29

Mead suggested that a young couple with no immediate plans to

reproduce should first make an "individual marriage," a legal tie that
excluded bearing children, did not imply a lifelong commitment, and
had no economic consequences should the couple part. Mead
recommended that when this couple decided to produce young, they
enter a "parental marriage," a legal relationship that confirmed a long-
term bond and made formal provisions for their children should they
divorce.

In the 1960s, Mead's proposal was considered avant-garde. But a

version of the first part of this two-step marriage erupted like a fuma-
role in the 1970s—"living together." Numbers more than tripled
between 1970 and 1981; what had been scandalous became routine.
Interestingly, 60 percent of these relationships eventually lead to the
altar. 30 It is difficult to judge the effect of trial marriages on divorce,
however, because the available data conflict. In some studies these
live-in partnerships are associated with more divorce; in others the
reverse is true. 31 It is entirely possible that premarital living
arrangements are not an important factor in the incidence of divorce.

Sociologists know little about these live-in partnerships except that

they show no signs of ceasing. I am not surprised. Trial marriages are
probably as old as humanity itself.

An essential ingredient of Mead's marriage plan has been forgotten,

though: American couples who go on to the second step often make no
provisions for their forthcoming children in case of divorce. We do not
like prenuptial agreements. And here we are at loggerheads with our
prehistory.

Long before their wedding day, spouses in many traditional societies

know exactly what rights they have to the house, the land, the
children. A Navajo child, for example, is born into his or her mother's
clan, so everybody knows who "owns" the infant should the couple
part. Land and goods are not negotiable either. Navajo women own
their own property; men own theirs. As a result, despite all the
traumas of divorce, there are no squabbles over who owns what.

Not so among most Americans. At marriage we generally merge

our goods. And we are so caught up with romantic emotions that we
refuse to anticipate separation or make the most cursory agreements
about the future of our children should the marriage fail.

This cocktail of sentimentality and impracticality becomes flammable

at the time of divorce. Judges, bailiffs, lawyers, detectives, mediators,
property assessors, realtors, artists that airbrush faces out of family
albums—the individuals entangled in an American divorce can be
legion. From greeting cards to therapists to tax experts, an
indefatigable "divorce industry" thrives in America. Anthropologist
Paul Bohannan thinks we should convert this immense enterprise into
a "well-family industry." 32 Starting at the altar with a prenup-tial
agreement, Mead might add.

The "remarriage industry" is also booming. 33 Our health, sports,

travel, and singles clubs, support groups, therapists and counselors,
self-improvement books, women's magazines, dating services, and
want ads are all tied to our search for "him" or "her." Despite some
stabilizing of marriage in the 1990s, some 50 percent of all Americans
who marry will probably divorce. So these divorce and remarriage
industries should flourish. The old custom of matchmaking may even
spring back into vogue.

Prisoners of the Present Tense

So today women work. They have fewer children, more widely spaced
apart. Women no longer consider marriage a career. Some engage in
trial marriages. Some spouses commute between two homes. And all
these patterns have antecedents in early stages of human evolution.
But what about our single parents and "blended" families? Are these
really new, or are we yet again prisoners of the present tense?

In 1987 some 20 percent of all American families with children were

headed by single parents; some 90 percent of these were run by
mothers and almost 10 percent by fathers. The number of these single-
parent households has doubled since the early 1970s—not only
because of soaring divorce rates but also because more women are
having children out of wedlock. 34 One out of every four boys and
girls spends some time in a single-parent home. Is this unusual?

Yes and no. Less than a century ago single mothers customarily gave
up their young to orphanages or relatives; as recently as 1940 one in
ten American children lived with neither parent. These days only one
in thirty-seven youngsters lives in a foster home. One parent should be
an improvement over none. Moreover, many single-parent families are
not permanent. The vast majority of divorced parents remarry; about
half do so within three years of their divorce. 35 So the average length
of time a child of divorced parents spends in a single-parent home is
about four years. 36 These single-parent households, then, are
generally temporary arrangements.

Moreover, single parenting is nothing new. Given that divorce rates

were probably quite high among our hunting-gathering forebears, as
they are in many traditional societies today, single parents are almost
certainly another throwback to the past.

So are all of our blended families. Over one in six American children
live in a family with a stepparent; many live with stepbrothers and
stepsisters as well. And here history speaks loud and clear. Because
more men and women died younger in the past, nuclear families
actually remained intact for shorter periods. 37 Thus remarriage,
blended families, and stepparents were all quite common a hundred
years ago.

Is the family an endangered species? Absolutely not. These remarriage

links, these trellises of marriage ties, were not new in the nineteenth
century; they were not new among our forebears who first kindled
flame in the caves of Africa over a million years ago. Divorce, single
parents, remarriage, stepparents, and blended families are as old as
the human animal—creations of a distant prehistoric age. As Paul
Bohannan summed it up, 'The family is the most adaptable of all
human institutions, changing with every social demand. The family
does not break in a storm as oak or pine trees do, but bends before the
wind like the bamboo tree in Oriental tales and springs up again." 38

New Kin
So what is genuinely new? From an anthropological perspective the
only remarkably novel phenomenon of contemporary family life is the
prevalence of single and divorced people, and of widows and widowers
living by themselves. "Soup for one" could be the motto of the day.

Actually, the number of single American adults has not changed in the
past one hundred years. Some 41 percent of all Americans over age
fifteen are single today; 46 percent of all people over age fifteen were
single in 1900. 39 But in our American past and in all traditional
societies, single parents, young singles, and single widows and
widowers lived with relatives; they did not live alone. Yet, in 1990,
nearly twenty-three million Americans lived by themselves.
(Interestingly, the median length of time that men and women spend
living by themselves is 4.8 years.)

This is new. Moreover, this modern habit is generating what might be

a truly modern family type: the association. Associations,
anthropologists say, are composed of unrelated friends. 40 Members
talk to one another regularly and share their triumphs and their
troubles. They assemble for minor holidays like birthdays and Labor
Day. And they help care for one another when one is sick. These
people have a network of friends that they consider family. This
network often breaks down, however, during major festivals like
Christmas when people join their genetic relatives. No wonder
holidays can be so stressful. Displaced from their daily family world,
people find themselves out of touch, out of place.

So for the first time in human history some Americans and other
industrialized peoples have begun to pick their relatives—forging a
brand-new web of kin based on friendship instead of blood. These
associations may eventually spawn new kinship terms, new types of
insurance policies, new paragraphs in health plans, new rent
agreements, new types of housing developments, and many other legal
and social plans.

What else is really new?

Well, we are seeing a revolution in psychiatry that could change

the face of love. The brain has been a mystery for centuries; scientists
still call it the black box. But now we have begun to unravel the
mechanisms of the mind. As was discussed earlier in the book,
psychiatrists Michael Liebowitz, Hector Sabelli, and others think
infatuation is associated with natural amphetamines that pool in the
emotional centers of the brain, while attachment is linked to
morphine-like substances, the endorphins. And a few psychiatrists
have begun to treat lovesick men and women with drugs that act as
antidotes to some of these brain chemicals.

Could we cure the "playboy syndrome" with pills? Could new elixirs
eventually help "attachment junkies" break unsatisfactory
partnerships? Perhaps scientists will refine their understanding of
attraction and attachment during the coming century and bottle love
potions or temporary cures. If so, you can be sure that would-be lovers
and jilted, pining sweethearts will buy these concoctions by the jug—
either to fuel obsession or snuff passion out.

"Love magic" sold a thousand years ago; it will sell a thousand years
from now.

Etienne-Emile Baulieu, the French physician, has sparked a revolution

in birth control with his development of the drug RU-486. At last, we
may have a safe, efficient abortion pill—an antidote to unwanted
childbearing that would reinforce several of the aforementioned
modern social trends.

But RU-486 is not legal or available in America. Largely because of

widespread opposition by prolife groups, it may take several years
before RU-486 becomes widely available—at your doctor's office. But
when have Americans ever waited for legal drugs? If RU-486 is not
legalized, some version of it will almost certainly be a black-market
item in the United States by the year 2000.

If so, teenagers will buy it like a balloon ride off a burning building.
Our teens have been duped by evolution. In prehistoric times, puberty
occurred around age sixteen or seventeen for girls—followed by at
least two years of irregular ovulation, a phase known as adolescent
subfertility. So throughout our long hunting-gathering past, teenagers
could copulate for several years without the risk and

costs of pregnancy. Today, however, our fatty diet and sedentary life-
style have raised the critical body weight and tricked the body into
early puberty. Hence the median age at menarche in many Western
cultures is around thirteen now, as opposed to sixteen in 1900. 41

No wonder our young get pregnant long before they should. They are
designed by nature to experiment with sex and love, yet their natural
mechanisms for birth control are gone. If RU-486 becomes a black-
market drug, however, American teenagers may risk solving their
problem of pregnancy by themselves—no matter what America's
abortion laws maintain. And this reproductive option should fuel
trends toward more working women, fewer children, more divorce,
and more remarriage.

Rise of the Entrepreneur

The United States is at the confluence of several business trends that

should affect women, men, and love. Foremost, many of the baby
boomers are going into business for themselves. These men and
women joined the work force in their twenties, and now many feel
stuck in middle management. They have the training, the experience,
the networks, and the wish to break away from conventional
employment. Corporate America would like to see them go. Businesses
are suffering from a bloated middle management. Three million
American executives lost their jobs in the 1980s, and corporate "down
scaling" is likely to continue. 42

And as corporations push the boomers out, the service industries are
sucking the boomers in. Our senior citizens, working women, all of the
singles, even the large corporations buy a host of services. Not just day
care and take-out restaurants but masseuses, decorators, and the like;
some harried careerists even employ specialists to clean and organize
their closets.

So as the futurist Marvin Cetron sees it, "By the turn of the century,
most of our middle-sized institutions will have vanished but thousands
of tiny companies will be flourishing beneath the feet of giants." 43
And facilitating the growth of all these small businesses

are a host of new technological innovations, such as home computers

and fax machines. The timing is perfect; Alvin Toffler's vision of the
"electronic cottage" has come of age.

Globalization is a second major shift in business. Companies are

spreading their offices around the world. These businesses need
"culture brokers/' individuals who can move effectively between
different societies with different manners and different languages.

How will these trends, entrepreneurism and globalization, affect

romance?

They favor women.

As you recall from chapter 10, women are, on the average, more verbal
than men. They are also better at picking up all sorts of nonverbal
cues. And they are outstanding at networking. Before the computer,
before the knitting needle, even before the bow and arrow, women also
developed another business tool—arbitration. Remember Big Mama,
the queen of the chimpanzee colony at the Arnhem Zoo? Mama was
the group arbiter; she regularly broke up fights and soothed hurt
feelings after the incessant political skirmishes that plagued this
chimp community. For millennia ancestral women must have played a
similar role, manipulating their peers with their wits and tongues,
rather than their fists. Negotiating is a female skill.

A last strength of the twenty-first-century woman will be her age. In

traditional societies women become more assertive and self-assured as
they get older; they generally become more powerful in political,
religious, and social life as well. Undoubtedly this is because they are
less tied to the chores of raising children. But as I have mentioned,
biology may play a role. With menopause, levels of estrogen decline
and the body's dosage of testosterone becomes unmasked—and
testosterone is often found in the company of authority and rank.
"There is no greater power in the world," Margaret Mead once said,
"than the zest of a post-menopausal woman." With words, with
nonverbal acuity, with networking and negotiating skills—and also
with unleashed testosterone—women will probably become

increasingly visible in modern national and international business life.

And powerful working women will almost certainly sustain the long-
term trends initiated by the Industrial Revolution: later marriage,
fewer children, more divorce, and more remarriage.

Our problems with sex in the office will probably get worse, for here
we are once again at loggerheads with our prehistory. For millennia,
men and women did separate tasks. As a result, it is sometimes
awkward for the sexes to work in close proximity; we tend to flirt. No
wonder the workplace has long been a bog of sexual harassment. Some
of this tomfoolery is useful, of course; a few office affairs turn into
happy marriages. But I am referring to the sexual overtures that are
not welcome.

Mead suggested an antidote to office lechery; she proposed we

institute taboos. Periodic consciousness-raising sessions are a good
beginning. At these meetings the staff and management assemble to
learn about the four-part flirt, how not to smile, the power of the gaze,
the subtle messages people cast with touch, gait, body posture, vocal
tone, clothing, and use of space—and all the other components of
sexual harassment. Despite all the jokes about the meeting, some
standards will have been set.

Office mediators, trained specialists employed to hear sexual

complaints and empowered to recommend specific actions, may also
become commonplace. These policemen do not always deter predators
or save the prey. But at the very least, each peacekeeper will stress the
policy of the company and be a beacon flashing: "Warning!
Management does not condone unfair play." Another deterrent
probably will be fear. As more and more cases of sexual harassment hit
the newspapers, as more politicians, CEOs, and well-known
personalities are publicly admonished, and as laws become enacted
and enforced, sexual harassment might be contained.

I doubt that it will disappear, however; the genders were built to court
—even when it leads to trouble. The only really new development may
be that more of the offenders will be women.

Hundreds of other forces will affect our marriages. More flexible

work hours, part-time employment, job sharing, and parenting leave

for new mothers and fathers should vary our romantic lives. Working
wives will certainly not be the kinds of companions that homemakers
have been. Conversations will be different. Styles of arguing may
change. Who pays for dinner may shift. But I doubt that many wives
will be able to enlist their husbands into doing more household chores.
As I mentioned earlier, around the world women do the vast majority
of housework, in cultures where they are economically powerful and in
those where they are not.

I suspect that spouses will continue to allot household duties

according to their personal rules. And the rise of economically
powerful women will not dramatically alter these arrangements.

Forward to the Past

So we are creatures living in a sea of currents that pull and stretch our
family lives. Upon the ancient blueprint for serial monogamy and
clandestine adultery, our culture casts its own design. The fact that
America is getting older will tend to stabilize divorce rates. That we are
marrying later than we did in the 1950s is another factor that makes
for stable divorce rates. However, working women and commuter
marriages should counter these stabilizing influences, keeping divorce
rates relatively high. And other phenomena such as trial marriages,
single mothers, smaller families, and blended families should be
commonplace in the decades of tomorrow.

But none of these modern social trends are new. Instead, they have
come across the centuries, up from primitives who wandered onto the
plains of Africa at least four million years ago.
Of all the social changes that are occurring, however, the most
interesting to me is the following. We are shedding the agricultural
tradition and, in some respects, returning to our nomadic roots.

Few of us still live in the house where we grew up. Rather, many of us
have several places we call home—our parent's house, the office, our
own residence, and perhaps a vacation spot. We migrate between
them. We no longer grow our own food. We now hunt and

gather in the grocery store and then carry home our catch—as Twiggy
and Homo erectus did over a million years ago. (I am not surprised
that we like fast foods either, or eat between meals here and there as
we move through the day; our ancestors certainly ate as they marched
along.) We commute to work again. And we have a loose network of
friends and relatives, many of whom live far away.

These are habits from our past.

We are shedding the sexual attitudes of farm life too. In prein-dustrial

Europe, a wedding often marked a merger of property and an alliance
between families. So marriages had to be stable and permanent. This
necessity is gone. A woman's job was to bear her husband's seed and
raise his young; hence our agrarian forerunners required virginity at
marriage. This custom is gone. Many of our farming ancestors
carefully arranged their marriages. This practice is largely gone. They
banned divorce. This is gone. They had a double standard for adultery.
This has changed. And they celebrated two marital mottoes: "Honor
thy husband" and "Till death us do part." These, too, are disappearing.

For the past several thousand years, most farm women had only three
basic options: to be uneducated, subservient housewives; to be
cloistered nuns; to be courtesans, prostitutes, or concubines. Men, on
the other hand, held the sole responsibility for the family income and
welfare of the young.

Now vast numbers of women work outside the home. We have double-
income families. We are more nomadic. And we have a growing
equality between the sexes. In these respects, we are returning to
traditions of love and marriage that are compatible with our ancient
human spirit.

Notes

The citation numbers in each chapter refer to specific sources, groups

of sources or footnotes that appear in the endnotes. To find the
complete bibliographical reference for any source turn from the
endnotes to the bibliography. If you would like to know the source for
data not referenced, please contact me at the American Museum of
Natural History, New York City.

i Courting: Games People Play

i. ethology: The word ethology comes from the Greek ethos, meaning
"manner" or "behavior" (see Gould 1982). Ethology is generally
considered to be the observation and analysis of animal behavior in
the natural environment. It is based on the premise that characteristic
behavior patterns of a species evolved in the same way that physical
traits evolved, through selection and evolution. Darwin laid the
groundwork for the science of ethology with his examination of motor
patterns, such as snarling and other facial gestures, in different species
(see Darwin [1872] 1965).

2. For cross-species similarities in body language and facial

expressions, see Givens 1986, 1983; Goodall 1986; Van Hooff 1971;
Darwin [1872] (1965).

3. Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989; Hess 1975.

4. DeWaal 1987.

5. Smuts 1985, 1987.

6. Ekman 1985.

7. Darwin [1872] 1965.

8. Ekman, Sorenson, and Friesen 1969; Ekman 1980, 1985; Goleman

1981. cartography of the face: Using anatomy texts, cameras, and a
mirror, psychologist Paul Ekman and his colleagues learned to
contract their individual facial muscles at will. When they were unsure
which muscles they were using, they inserted specially wired needles
into specific muscles to

isolate the activity of each. Ekman reports that the human "open
smile" is among the least complicated facial expressions. It takes only
the "lip corner puller," the "dimpler," and the "cheek raiser" to make
our wide, inviting grin. The ninety-six major variations of anger use
several hundred different muscle combinations, depending on their
intensity. See Ekman iQ85;Goleman 1981.

9. Field et al. 1982; Trevathan 1987.

10. Givens 1983; Perper 1985.

11. human spatial territories: People divide space into four distinct
types. For Americans "intimate space" is generally about eighteen
inches around the head. You permit only intimate companions and
pets into this private territory for any length of time. "Personal space"
is the two to four feet surrounding you; you allow friends to enter here.
"Social space," about four to eight feet away, you use when you interact
with others during work or social gatherings. "Public spaces" are all
the areas beyond nine to ten feet from you. Different societies measure
the territory around the body differently, but they all have a code for
proximity. See Hall 1966.

12. conversational courting tactics: As a couple begin to talk, they

search for common interests and try to establish compatibility. They
may test each other by disagreeing, then watch how the other handles
this adversity. The goal is trust. One may reveal a weakness, yet wrap it
in a positive self-image. And early in the courtship they may ask a
minor favor—another test. Vital to these interactions are three subtle
undercurrents. People strive to "make a good impression," they seek
the attention of the other, and they revert to cooing and other babylike
behaviors. All the while they try to convey a panoply of assets,
including stability, self-control, intelligence, kindness, caring,
acceptance, competence, reliability, bravery, humor, and, most
important, availability. See Eibl-Eibesfeldt

1989.

13. touch: Our ancestors were held constantly as babies and slept next
to their mother's breast, so human beings are designed to live in skin
contact with others. In some cultures, infants are held so continually
that they never crawl; their first solo exploration of the world comes
when they try to walk. As a result, we naturally like to touch and be
touched unless we are trained otherwise. See Hall 1959; Montagu 1971;
Morris 1971; Henley 1977.

14. Givens 1983.

15. Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989.

16. Hall 1976.

17. Douglas 1987.

18. \Vhyte1978.

19. Yerkes and Elder 1936.

20. Daly and Wilson 1983.

21. courtship feeding: It is possible that this courtship feeding mimics

feeding between mother and infant, triggering feelings of caring and
protection by the man and childlike acceptance by the woman that
enhance the bonding process. See Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989.

22. Goodall 1986; Teleki 1973a.

23. Ford and Beach 1951.

24. Ibid.

25. Jespersen [1922] 1950.

2 Infatuation: Why Him? Why Her?

Hunt 1959,45. Tennov 1979.

3. Stendhal [1822] 1975.

4. Ackerman 1990; Russell 1976; Hopson 1979.

5. pheromones: The term pheromone, coined in 1959, can be applied

to any chemical substance that a creature excretes as a signal that
elicits a specific, unlearned response in other creatures. Although
creatures give off pheromones as repellants and for other uses, the
term pheromone is generally used to describe sex attractants. See
Shorey 1976.

6. Hopson 1979; Ackerman 1990.

7. Gregersen 1982.

8. Cutler et al. 1986; human male pheromones: These data on human

male pheromones are speculative at present (see Wilson 1988). But
the presence of a male does stimulate estrus of other species. Scientists
at the Monell Cemical Senses Center suggest that "male essence" may
eventually be useful in correcting certain kinds of infertility, regulating
the menstrual cycle, improving the rhythm method of birth control,
and alleviating some of the symptoms of menopause.

9. Forsyth 1985.

10. McClintock 1971. Those who question these data include Graham
and McGrew 1980; Quadagno et al. 1981.

11. Preti etal. 1986.

12. Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989.

13. Givens 1983.

14. Money 1986.

15. Ibid. 19.

16. sexual perversions: John Money (1986) proposes that paraphilias,

or sexual perversions, begin in childhood when traumatic events
curtail the normal development of erotic, sexual, and loving feeling
and the child's sexual impulses are redirected toward deviant patterns
of attraction and arousal. By adolescence the individual has developed
an eccentric love map. These people are unable to find a partner whose
love map complements theirs, so they begin to seek inappropriate
partners to fulfill their drive for sexual arousal. The link between love
and lust has been severed, blocked, or distorted, and the individual
starts to indulge in sexual perversions. For a discussion of human
sexual perversions and their etiology, see Money 1986.

17. Feinman and Gill 1978.

18. Bower 1990.

19. Ford and Beach 1951; Frayser 1985.

20. Buss 1989.

21. Shepher 1971; Spiro 1958.

22. Tennov 1979.

23. Capellanus 1959.

24. Jankowiak 1992.

25. Ibid.

26. Jankowiak and Fischer 1992.

27. Givens 1983.

28. Fehrenbacker 1988.

29. Liebowitz 1983.

30. Sabelli et al. 1990.

31. Sabelli 1991.

32. the role of lhrh in infatuation: Several other neurochemicals are

probably also associated with infatuation. Among them is LHRH, or
luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone. The hypothalamus produces
LHRH, which then travels to the nearby pituitary. Here it triggers the
production of hormones that regulate the production of estrogen and
progesterone in the ovaries and androgens in the testes. In some
animals LHRH also travels directly from the hypothalamus to the
emotional and thinking parts of the brain, informing them when to
court and copulate. The association between hypopituitarism and lack
of erotic/sexual arousal suggests that this hormonal feedback loop
plays a role in infatuation. See Money 1980.

33. Money and Ehrhardt 1972.

34. Money 1980, 65.

35. Liebowitz 1983, 200; Bowlby 1969.

36. oxytocin and sexual arousal: Undoubtedly other neurotransmitters

in the brain, as well as hormones secreted by the brain, will be
discovered that contribute to our human system of attachment—and
detachment. Oxytocin, for example, is a peptide synthesized primarily
by the hypothalamus, which lies at the base of the brain and forms
part of the limbic system; it is known for its role in stimulating uterine
contractions during childbirth and the production of human breast
milk. Scientists now think oxytocin may also play a role in stimulating
the sex drive, the drive to nuzzle and protect infants, and feelings of
pleasure and satisfaction during body contact, sexual arousal, and
sexual fulfillment. One study of men found that levels of oxytocin in
the blood became three to five times more abundant during orgasm
(Angier 1991).

3 Of Human Bonding: Is Monogamy Natural?

1. Daly 1978.

2. Van Valen 1973.

3. Hamilton 1980; Hamilton et al. 1981.

4. Dougherty 1955.

5. Parker, Baker, and Smith 1972.

6. origin of two sexes: There are several theories for why two sexes
evolved. Some primitive blue-green algae have two mating types,
designated + and — because the gender of neither is distinguishable.
One theory holds that these algae evolved two mating types to avoid
inbreeding (see Daly and Wilson 1983). The "genetic repair" theory
proposes that with sexual reproduction new combinations could repair
the mutational damage to DNA material that had occurred during
preceding cell divisions (see Michod 1989). Another theory is known
as the parasitism hypothesis. The sexes arose in the same fashion that
modern viruses parasitize host cells: the virus incorporates its own
DNA into the host cell; then, as the host cell reproduces itself, it
replicates the DNA of the virus too. Thus the precursors of males were
tiny gametes that parasitized larger female gametes. For an overview
of the advantages of asexual and sexual reproduction, the costs of
sexual reproduction, and theories on the origin of sexual reproduction,
see Daly and Wilson 1983; Williams 1975; Maynard Smith 1978; Low
1979; Daly 1978; Michod and Levin 1987.

7. Hamilton 1964.

8. "inclusive fitness" and altruism: The theory of inclusive fitness was

first suggested by Darwin (1859) when he noted that natural selection
may operate on the level of the family rather than on that of the
individual. Inclusive fitness was anticipated again in the 1930s by the
British geneticist

J. B. S. Haldane. But the theory was formally proposed in 1964 by the

British population geneticist William D. Hamilton, to explain the
evolution of altruism: if an ancestral man sacrificed himself to save his
drowning brother, he was actually saving half of his own DNA and,
thereby, some of his altruistic nature. Hence one's fitness is measured
by the number of one's own genes and those of one's relatives who
survive. With Hamilton's concept of inclusive fitness many other social
behaviors became explicable: creatures defend a common territory;
animals share and cooperate; people are nationalistic because when
they help their relatives they further their own DNA (see Wilson 1975).
Today inclusive fitness and the related concept of kin selection are
standard means for explaining some patterns of animal behavior. See
ibid.; Barish 1977; Hamilton 1964. 9. reproductive strategies: This
adaptation of terms has been incomplete; the two variants of
monogamy—monogyny and monandry—are not used to describe
human marriage systems. As a result, the separate reproductive tactics
of men and women are largely overlooked. For example, we are told
that the Afikpo Ibo of eastern Nigeria are "polygynous." Some Afikpo
Ibo men have several wives. But Afikpo Ibo women marry only one
man at a time, monandry. So two marriage patterns occur, polygyny
and monandry, depending on whether you are describing men or
women. When social scientists describe a society as polygynous, they
ignore the reproductive tactics of women.

10. Wittenberger and Tilson 1980, 198.

11. See Trivers 1985; Mock and Fujioka 1990; Westneat, Sherman, and
Morton 1990; Hiatt 1989; Wilson and Daly, in press.

12. Bray, Kennelly, and Guarino 1975.

13. Gibbs et al. 1990.

14. Lampe 1987; Wolfe 1981.

15. definitions OF marriage: Many anthropologists have defined

marriage. Suzanne Frayser's version is a good one: "Marriage is a
relationship within which a group socially approves and encourages
sexual intercourse and the birth of children" (Frayser 1985, 248).
Anthropologist Ward Goode-nough's similar one defines the three
essential components of marriage as the jural or legal dimension, the
priority of sexual access, and the eligibility to reproduce (Goodenough
1970, 12).

16. Cherlin 1981.

17. Fisher 1989.

18. Murdock 1967; van den Berghe 1979; Betzig 1986.

19. Betzig 1982, 1986.

20. tiwi marriages and the role of women: Tiwi women are not pawns
in the marriage wars of men. On the contrary, women play crucial
roles in

negotiating marriages. Every son-in-law must cater to the needs of the

woman who will bear his brides, and a mother-in-law can break this
contract if his gifts and work are paltry. So Tiwi women are powerful
nodes in the marriage system, as well as being powerful in other
aspects of society. See Goodale 1971; Hart and Pilling i960; Rohrlick-
Leavitt, Sykes, and Weatherford 1975; Berndt 1981.

21. Verner and Willson 1966; Orians 1969; Borgerhoff Mulder 1990.

22. polygyny and women: Women living with co-wives are generally
less fertile than women in monogamous marriages (Daly and Wilson
1978). However, among women living with polygynous husbands, the
first wife often bears more children then junior co-wives do, probably
because she does less strenuous work and has access to more food
(Isaac and Feinberg 1982).

23. Bohannan 1985; Mealey 1985.

24. forms OF polygyny: Males in the animal community acquire

harems in at least four ways; each has parallels in humankind (Flinn
and Low 1986). Polygyny is frequently found in species where the food
supply, hiding places, nesting spots, or mating grounds are located in
clusters. Females tend to gather at these places to feed or breed, and if
a male can succeed in becoming the sole proprietor of one of these rich
locations, he may acquire a harem simply by driving off other males
and waiting for the females to arrive. This tactic is known as resource-
defense polygyny (Emlen and Oring 1977). Among the Kipsigis of
Kenya, women regularly choose to marry polygynous men with large
pieces of real estate (Borgerhoff Mulder 1990).

Males of some species round up a group of females and then forcibly

prevent other males from courting them; this is known as female-
defense polygyny. If a Tiwi husband of Australia suspected a young
wife of adultery, he sometimes beat her or complained to the girl's
natal family. If a boy eloped with an adolescent married woman and
refused to repent, an irate husband might kill the thief (Goodale 1971).
This guarding behavior is reminiscent of female-defense polygyny seen
in other species (Flinn and Low 1986).

Another strategy is known as male-dominance polygyny. Male sage

grouse maneuver among themselves to acquire "mating stations" on a
lek (see chapter 1), from which they can be easily seen by passing
females. Females then walk among them and rest in their mating
stations to mate. Older, more vigorous males tend to attract most of
the passing females (De Vos 1983). Among the !Kung San of the
Kalahari Desert of southern Africa some men are charismatic, strong,
and healthy, and they occasionally acquire two wives not with
resources but with their personalities (Shos-tak 1981). Orangutans,
moose, and bumblebees persistently seek out re-

ceptive females, mate, and move on; this is known as search polygyny.
A variation of this form of harem building is characteristic of truck
drivers, traveling salesmen, international businessmen, and sailors
who have "a wife in every port." See Flinn and Low 1986; Dickemann
1979.

25. Frayser 1985; van den Berghe 1979; Murdock and White 1969.

26. Murdock 1949, 27-28.

27. Murdock 1967; van den Berghe 1979.

28. Klein 1980.

29. Alexander 1974; Finn and Low 1986; Goldizen 1987; Jenni 1974.

30. Lancaster and Lancaster 1983.

31. nayar marriage customs: The Nayar of India's Malabar Coast in

Kerala have a marriage form that defies classification. These people
live in households consisting of siblings and mother. The head of
household is a man. A woman's first marriage is a brief ceremony;
after this ritual, she does not need to socialize or even have sex with
her husband. If a wife wishes to take other lovers, she is free to do so.
Her husband and lovers call on her only at night; thus they are called
visiting husbands. Women have anywhere from three to twelve lovers
at any one time. A marriage ends when a husband no longer gives his
wife gifts at annual festivals. It is essential that one or more men of the
proper social group claim paternity when a "wife" becomes pregnant,
although the biological father often does little more than observe the
incest taboo in later life—if he knows the child is his. For the Nayar,
marriage provides nothing but legitimacy for children. See Gough
1968; Fuller 1976.

32. "free love" communes: Studies of six American communes indicate

that their members do not actually practice "free love"; instead, rules
about copulation are rigid and sexual and social roles are hierarchical
and highly structured. See Wagner 1982; Stoehr 1979; Constantine
and Con-stantine 1973.

33. See van den Berghe 1979.

34. Bohannan 1985.

35. POLYGYNY AND POLYANDRY SECONDARY HUMAN

REPRODUCTIVE

strategies: Because polygyny provides males with genetic advantages

and polyandry provides females with extra resources, some
anthropologists argue that these reproductive strategies are primary
reproductive tactics of humankind, that men and women endure
monogamy only because men are unable to gain the resources they
need to acquire harems and that women endure monogamy only
because they are unable to entice several males to provide resources.
Supporting this view is the ample evidence for polygyny among
powerful men (Betzig 1986). But the variant reproductive strategy of
monogamy in conjunction with adultery provides similar reproductive
advantages; males have the opportunity to inseminate multiple

partners; females can garner extra resources. Moreover, most human

beings exhibit monogamy in conjunction with adultery. So I think this
is the primary reproductive strategy of Homo sapiens, while polygyny
and polyandry are opportunistic, secondary reproductive tactics.

36. Whyte 1978, 74; Frayser 1985, 269.

37. Mace and Mace 1959.

4 Why Adultery?: The Nature of Philandering

1. Diana, n.d.

2. Carneiro 1958.

3. world patterns of adultery: In 72 percent of 56 societies surveyed,

female adultery is moderate to common (van den Berghe 1979). Of 139
societies surveyed in the 1940s, 39 percent permitted men and women
to have extramarital affairs either during certain holidays or festivals,
with particular kinfolk, such as one's wife's sister or husband's
brother, or under other special circumstances. Extramarital relations
were extremely common in 17 of the remaining 85 cultures, and
offenders were rarely punished (see Ford and Beach 1951). In a
different study anthropologist George Murdock surveyed 148 societies,
past and resent, and found that 120 had taboos against adultery, 5
freely allowed adultery, 19 allowed philandering under some
conditions, and 4 disapproved of but did not strictly forbid sex outside
of marriage (Murdock 1949). In all cases, however, Murdock was
measuring adultery as sexual activity with distantly related or
unrelated people. This distinction is important. He confirms Ford and
Beach's (1951) finding that a substantial majority of societies allow
extramarital relations with individuals in certain kin relationships.
Suzanne Frayser (1985) confirms the widespread taboo against
adultery with unrelated individuals too: she reports that 74 percent of
58 cultures forbid adultery either for the woman or for both sexes. She
notes that punishments for adultery vary. In 83 percent of 48
societies, both partners receive penalties for adultery; in 40 percent of
them men and women get the same degree of chastisement; in 31
percent of them the man's punishment is more severe than that of his
female lover. No society tolerates a female's dalliances while punishing
males; and significantly more cultures have restrictions on women
than on men. Societies with few prohibitions against extramarital
liaisons of any kind and with a high degree of extramarital sexual
behavior for both sexes include the Dieri of Australia, the Gilyak of
Northeast Asia, the Hidatsa Indians of North Dakota, the Lesu of New
Ireland, the Masai of East Africa, the Toda of India, the Kaingang of
Brazil, and the Yapese of the Pacific (Ford and Beach 1951). Stephens
(1963) reports that even in those cultures where adultery is condoned,
men and women suffer from jealousy.

4. Schneider 1971.

5. Gove 1989.

6. Westermarck 1922.

7. People magazine 1986.

8. Bullough 1976.

9. Ibid.

10. Lampe 1987.

11. Lampe 1987; Bullough 1976.

12. Bullough 1976.

13. Song of Solomon 3:16.

14. Lawrence 1989; Foucault 1985.

15. Lampe 1987; Bullough 1976.

16. origin of sexual terms: By the fourth century ad. adultery was so
commonplace in Rome that officials began to fine offenders. The
revenue from this taxation was apparently so great that the state built
a temple to Venus with it (Bardis 1963). The terms cunnilingus,
fellatio, masturbation, and prostitute all come from ancient Roman
vernacular (Bullough 1976).

17. Bullough 1976; Lawrence 1989.

18. See Bullough 1976; Lawrence 1989; Brown 1988; Pagels 1988.

19. Bullough 1976, 192.

20. Lampe 1987, 26; Lawrence 1989, 125; Pagels 1988.

21. Burns 1990.

22. Lawrence 1989, 169.

23. Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin 1948; Kinsey et al. 1953.

24. Hunt 1974, 263.

25. Tavris and Sadd 1977.

26. Wolfe 1981.

27. Hite 1981.

28. Lawson 1988; Lampe 1987.

29. Marriage and Divorce Today 1987.

30. Blumstein and Schwartz 1983.

3 1. TIMING AND DURATION OF EXTRAMARITAL

RELATIONSHIPS: The duration

of extramarital relationships is difficult to establish from the

literature. In one study of 200 couples, husbands maintained their
extramarital affairs for an average of twenty-nine months, whereas
wives sustained theirs for an average of twenty-one months (Hall
1987). Kinsey (1953) noted that about 42 percent of his sample of
women engaged in extramarital coitus for a year or less, 23 percent for
two to three years, and 35 percent for four years or more. But he did
not say how long each affair lasted, only how long these women
engaged in extramarital coitus.

A study of about 600 British men and women found that men married

in the 1970s had their first extramarital relationship 5 years after

wedding and that women remained faithful 4.5 years after wedding.
Men married in the 1960s waited an average of 7 years; women waited
an average of 8 years before they had an affair. Among those married
prior to i960, men took an extra lover an average of 11 years after
wedding, whereas women waited 14.5 years (Lawson 1988).

32. Kinseyet al. 1953, 409.

33. See Bateman 1948; Trivers 1972; Symons 1979.

34. Symons 1979, v, 291.

35. Ruse 1988.

36. Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin 1948; Kinsey et al. 1953.

37. Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin 1948.

38. Shostak 1981, 271.

39. Hrdy 1981, 1986.

40. Ford and Beach 1951, 118.

41. Kinsey etal. 1953,415.

42. Werner 1984; Bullough and Bullough 1987.

43. Gregor 1985.

44. Reichard 1950.

45. Bullough and Bullough 1987.

46. Nimuendaju 1946.

47. Beals 1946.

48. Nadel 1942.

49. Symons and Ellis 1989.

50. See Lampe 1987, i78ft\; Brown 1987; Hall 1987; Lawson 1988;
Pittman 1989; Atwater 1987; Wolfe 1981, Hite 1981; Hunt 1974; Tavris
and Sadd 1977; Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin 1948; Kinsey et al. 1953.

51. Botwin 1988.

52. Shostak 1981.

53. Lampe 1987, 199.

5 Blueprint for Divorce: The Four-Year Itch

Abu-Lughod 1987, 24.

Abu-Lughod 1986.

Farah 1984.
Ibid.

Ibid. 26.

Ibid. 20.

7. Murdock 1965.

8. Weisman 1988.

9. Murdock 1965; Betzig 1989.

10. male/female rights to divorce: In thirty of forty traditional societies

surveyed by George Peter Murdock in 1950, men and women had
equal rights in initiating divorce; in 10 percent of these cultures
women had superior privileges regarding divorce. He concluded that
divorce was generally equally accessible to both sexes (Murdock 1965).
In a study of ninety-three societies Whyte confirmed this, concluding,
"We find equal divorce rights by far the most common pattern"
(Whyte 1978). Suzanne Frayser reported that, of forty-five societies
she surveyed, 38 percent allowed both husband and wife to obtain a
divorce; one or both partners had a difficult time securing a divorce in
62 percent of these cultures. In many insular Pacific societies divorce
was easy to obtain for both men and women. In circum-Mediterranean
societies it was more difficult for women to obtain a divorce, but in
many African societies it was generally harder for men to do so. See
Frayser 1985.

11. Murdock 1965, 319.

12. Betzig 1989.

13. marriage as a reproductive strategy: Murdock (1949) argued that

because sex and reproduction could be obtained outside of marriage,
economic cooperation and the division of labor between the sexes were
the primary reasons for marriage. But in the forty traditional societies
he surveyed in 1950, he noted that reproductive issues were prominent
reasons for divorce (Murdock 1965). A survey by Frayser confirms the
important role that reproduction plays in divorce—and thus in
marriage. In a sample of fifty-six cultures, men divorced their wives
first for reproductive problems, second for incompatibility, third for
illicit sex on the wife's part. In a sample of forty-eight cultures, women
abandoned their husbands most frequently because of incompatibility;
second, because of failure to meet economic and domestic
responsibilities; third, because of physical violence. See Frayser 1985.

14. remarriage: A survey of thirty-seven traditional peoples found that

remarriage was openly allowed in 78 percent of these societies; where
remarriage was difficult to obtain (in 22 percent of these cultures), it
was generally harder for the woman to remarry than for the man
(Frayser 1985). Remarriage occurred in preindustrial western
European societies, but it was regularly associated with the death of a
spouse, rather than divorce, since divorce was banned by the Roman
Catholic church. Common to several of these peoples was the charivari
tradition, the belief that it was unethical for widows to remarry.
Underlying this precept were the complex property transactions and
mechanics of inheritance that widow re-

marriage threatened (Dupaquier et al. 1981). The disapproval of

remarriage by widows (and sometimes widowers) among the
European peasantry of past centuries notwithstanding, remarriage
was both frequent and widespread (Dupaquier et al. 1981; Goody
1983). Remarriage by widows was difficult in preindustrial India,
China, Japan, and other agrarian peoples as well (Dupaquier et al.
1981; Goody 1983, 40). In all societies for which records are available,
however, remarriage rates were highest for women of reproductive
age. See Dupaquier et al. 1981; Furstenberg and Spanier 1984; also see
chapter 16 of this book.

15. Cherlin 1981.

16. Howell 1979; Shostak 1981.

17. Howell 1979.

18. female autonomy and high divorce rates: Cultures that have a high
degree of female autonomy and high divorce rates include those of the
Semang of the Malay peninsula (Sanday 1981; Murdock 1965; Textor
1967); several Caribbean populations (Flinn and Low 1986); the Dobu,
who live on an island off the eastern tip of New Guinea (Fortune
1963); the Fort Jameson Ngoni, the Yao, and the Lozi of southern
Africa (Barnes 1967); the Turu of Tanzania (Schneider 1971); the
Samoans of Oceania (Textor 1967); the Gururumba of New Guinea
(Friedl 1975); the Trobr-iand Islanders of Papua, New Guinea (Weiner
1976); the natives of Man-gaia, Polynesia (Suggs and Marshall 1971);
the Tlingit of southern Alaska (Laura Klein, Dept. of Anthropology,
Pacific Lutheran Univ., personal communication); the Kaingang of
southern Brazil, the Crow of Montana and the Iroquois of New York
(Murdock 1965).

19. Lloyd 1968, 79.

20. Friedl 1975.

21. Brenda Kay Manuelito, Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of New

Mexico, personal communication.

22. Van den Berghe 1979.

23. LeClercq 1910, 262.

24. Dupaquier et al. 1981.

25. Mark 10:11-12; Lawrence 1989,63.

26. Fisher 1987, 1989.

27. Cherlin 1981; Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988; Glick 1975;
Espenshade 1985; Whyte 1990.

28. the rising autonomy of roman women: Historians do not agree on

the reasons or the timing for the increased emancipation and self-
assertion of women in ancient Rome. Some point to the defeat of
Hannibal in 202 B.C.; others, to the defeat of Macedonia in 168 B.C.;
still others, to the

distinction of Carthage in 146 B.C. As a result of a series of historical

developments, however, Rome experienced rising opulence in the
centuries preceding Christ, a concomitant rise in women's economic,
political, and social power and a rise in rates of divorce. See Balsdon
1973; Car-copino 1973; Rawson 1986; Hunt 1959.

29. Burgess and Cottrell 1939; Ackerman 1963; Lewis and Spanier
1979; Bo-hannan 1985; London and Wilson 1988.

30. Whyte 1990, 201.

31. Cohen 1971.

32. Levinger 1968.

33. Bernard 1964.

34. Guttentag and Secord 1983.

35. Paul Morgan, Department of Sociology, Univ. of Pennsylvania,

personal communication.

36. Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988.

37. Fisher 1989.

38. DIVORCE DATA IN THE HUMAN RELATIONS AREA FILE:

CroSS-Cultural data

on divorce can be found in the Human Relations Area File. This file,
known as the HRAF, was started in the 1950s by George Peter
Murdock, who collected "ethnographies" (anthropological descriptions
of specific cultures) and then cross-indexed these books and articles.
Today over 850 cultures are cataloged. But the divorce data in this file
present several problems. As Charles Ackerman (1963) reports, "For
the most part, ethnographers have stated only that divorce is 'low,'
'common,' 'infrequent,' etc. Rarely has any ethnographer justified his
assessment of the rate by any statement of the actual incidence of
divorce." Ackerman also notes that HRAF data make it impossible to
judge divorce rates between societies; one cannot tell whether a "low"
divorce rate in one culture is equivalent to a "low" divorce rate in the
next. In addition, the researcher does not know whether the "low"
divorce rate of one community represents divorce rates in neighboring
villages or in the same community in other decades. Synchronic and
diachronic data on divorce are lacking. Moreover, different
ethnographers of the same culture report different frequencies of
divorce, and data in some of the entries conflict with reports by social
scientists in other books and articles (Textor 1967). Last, few
ethnographers tabulate the duration of the marriage that ends in
divorce, the age at divorce, the number of children per divorce, and
other data that could be used to make comparisons with Western
peoples.

39. Ackerman 1963; Murdock 1965; Friedl 1975.

40. Cohen 1971.

41. Avery 1989, 31.

42. Barnes 1967; Murdock 1965; Textor 1967; Friedl 1975.

43. Fisher 1989, 1991, in preparation.

44. the seven-year itch: The American concept of the seven-year itch
stems from the demographic use of the median to establish marriage
duration. The median is the middle number of a group of numbers; 50
percent of the incidents occur before the median and 50 percent after
the median. In the United States between i960 and 1982 the median
duration of marriage that ended in divorce ranged between 7.2 and
6.5; thus 50 percent of all marriages had terminated by about seven
years (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1986, chart 124). But I am interested
in establishing what most people do, the divorce peak or mode. Across
the United Nations sample, an average of 48 percent of all divorces
occur within seven years of marriage—the median—but divorces
cluster around a four-year peak (Fisher
■989).

45. Andrew Cherlin, Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins Univ.,

personal communication.

46. Bullough 1976, 217.

47. Fisher 1989.

48. Vital Statistics of the United States 1981.

49. Ibid. 1964, 1974, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1990.

50. Cherlin 1981.

51. Bohannan 1985,147.

52. PROCEDURAL MATTERS THAT SKEW THE UN DATA: The time

from the

petition of divorce to the granting of the decree generally ranges in the

United Nations sample from a few weeks to about a year (United
Nations 1958, 1984). Several other technicalities tend to skew these
divorce statistics: some countries include annulments, which decrease
the duration of marriage; some include legal separations, which
increase the duration of marriage; some include certain grounds for
divorce, such as "separation for two years," that extend the divorce
process; some base their statistics on "petitions for divorce" rather
than on final divorce decrees; and so on. Procedural problems such as
the overloading of court cases and the hearing of cases near the end of
the calendar year also skew the data. Fortunately the incidences of
annulments and legal separations are few. (See United Nations 1984,
table 37.) Because of the imprecision of these data on the legal
duration of marriage, I would prefer to examine the duration of
human pair-bonds—measured from the moment a man and women
begin to court and behave like a couple to the moment they decide to
end the tie. But these numbers are not available.
53. United Nations 1955, 1984; Fisher 1989.

54. Johnson 1983, 1.

55. Fisher 1989, 1991, in preparation.

56. Ibid.

57. DIVORCE RISK BY NUMBER OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN AN

IMPORTANT

problem: To establish the risk of divorcing with any specific number of

children in the family, one needs data not available in the yearbooks of
the United Nations. For example, to establish the risk of divorcing
with one dependent child, one must divide the number of couples who
divorce with one dependent child by the number of couples who
remain married with one dependent child. I have been unable to find
the appropriate correlating census data to establish the divorce risk by
number of dependent young for any year in any foreign country or for
any year in the United States. Thus these above data on divorce with
dependent children suggest that the presence of "issue" stabilizes a
marriage—but they do not prove it.

58. London and Wilson 1988.

59. Glick 1975.

60. Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988.

61. Cherlin 1981.

62. United Nations 1984.

63. relationship between these divorce profiles: Because these data

from the demographic yearbooks of the United Nations on the
duration of marriage that ends in divorce, on the age at divorce, and
on divorce with dependent children are not available in multivariate
form, they cannot show the relationships between these three divorce
profiles. The divorce peak among couples with one or no children, for
example, may be an artifact of the divorce peak during and around the
fourth year of marriage.

64. Chute 1949.

65. Chagnon 1982.

66. Barnes 1967.

67. Murdock 1965.

68. Betzig 1989.

69. Beardsley et al. 1959.

70. Radcliffe-Brown 1922.

71. East 1939.

72. WORLD PATTERNS OF CHILD CUSTODY AND PROPERTY

DIVISION FOLLOWING divorce: The most common constraints on
divorce stem from decisions about the custody of children and about
the allocation of property and other resources. A survey of forty-one
cultures showed that 44 percent granted the custody of children
according to the circumstances that precipitated the separation or
according to the wishes or ages of the "issue." In 22 percent of forty-
one societies surveyed, children were placed in the

custody of the husband; in 20 percent of them they became the

property of the wife. The circumstances of the divorce governed
property allocation in 41 percent of thirty-nine societies. In 29 percent
of thirty-nine cultures, economic resources were divided equitably
between spouses; in 23 percent of them the wife incurred greater
financial loss, and the husband and his relatives saw greater economic
devastation in 15 percent of them (Frayser 1985).

73. Henry 1941.

74. Cohen 1971, 135.

75. Howell 1979.

6 "When Wild in Woods the Noble Savage Ran"

Life Among Our Ancestors in the Trees

1. The fauna and flora mentioned here and in subsequent sections of

the book are ancient varieties of ancient species and families that are
now extinct.

2. Chesters 1957; Andrews and Van Couvering 1975; Bonnefille 1985;

Van Couvering 1980.

3. Corruccini, Ciochon, and McHenry 1976; Rose 1983.

4. Sibley and Ahlquist 1984; Simons 1985.

5. Corruccini, Ciochon, and McHenry 1976; Rose 1983.

6. Andrews 1981.

7. Smuts 1985, 16.

8. Nadlen 9 88.

9. Goodall 1986; Fossey 1983; Galdikas 1979.

10. Tutin and McGinnis 1981; Fossey 1979; Veit 1982; Galdikas 1979.

11. pygmy chimpanzee sexual behavior: Pygmy chimps, also known as

bonobos, have sex lives quite different from those of the other apes.
They engage in a great deal of homosexuality, and although
homosexual activities peak during estrus, these contacts occur during
other parts of the menstrual cycle (De Waal 1987; Thompson-Handler,
Malenky, and Ba-drian 1984). Bonobo heterosexual activities also
occur throughout most of the menstrual cycle (ibid.). And female
bonobos resume sexual behavior within a year of parturition (Badrian
and Badrian 1984). Because pygmy chimps exhibit these extremes of
primate sexuality and because biochemical data suggest that pygmy
chimps emerged as recently as two million years ago (Zihlman et al.
1987), I do not feel they make a suitable model for life as it was among
hominoids twenty million years ago.

12. Hrdy 1981; Goodall 1986; De Waal 1982.

13. Conoway and Koford 1964; Goodall 1986; Rowell 1972; Harcourt
1979; Veit 1982; Fossey 1983.

14. Goodall 1986; MacKinnon 1979.

15. Fossey 1983.

16. Veit 1982; Fossey 1983; De Waal 1982, 1987.

17. rape in other species: During several free-access tests (FATs) a

single female common chimp, gorilla, or orangutan was housed with a
single male of the same species in a common cage; each animal had
continual access to the other. In some cases in all three species the
male dominated the female and forced copulation—regardless of the
female's sexual status or her preference (Nadler 1988). The most
frequent and conspicuous examples of rape were offered by male
orangutans. Rape occurred every day a couple were housed together,
regardless of the stage of the female's estrus cycle or her interest in
sex. In a second test a doorway was installed that divided the cage in
half and was so designed that the female could pass freely to join the
male but the male could not pass freely to join the female. Under these
conditions, females of all three species sought copulations only during
a restricted period associated with midcycle estrus (ibid.). Hence when
females were able to control mating, sex was markedly periodic (ibid.).

Rape does occur among free-ranging apes. Two incidences of forced

copulation have been reported among chimpanzees (Tutin and
McGinnis 1981). In both cases a male trapped a female in a tree and
forced copulation. On a few occasions a male gorilla was observed
expressing aggressive gestures toward a female during courtship, but
in no instance was copulation forced (Harcourt 1979). Rape may be
among the primary reproductive strategies of subadult male
orangutans. Dominant, fully adult males establish a consortship with a
female during her period of receptivity; they do not coerce a female
into copulation (Galdikas 1979). But subadults often accost a female
and try to copulate by force (MacKinnon 1979). This "sneak rape"
behavior is now considered a "stable alternative strategy" for
reproduction among orangutans (Rodman 1988). Rape has also been
observed in other species such as ducks, gulls, herons, albatrosses, and
bank swallows. In monogamous, colonially nesting bank swallows, for
example, a male mated to one female will attempt to knock another
mated females out of the sky and force copulation (see Daly and
Wilson 1983).

18. Van Couvering 1980.

19. Berggren and Hollister 1977.

20. Van Couvering and Van Couvering 1975; Berggren and Hollister
1977; Thomas 1985.

21. Axelrod and Raven 1977.

22. Andrews and Van Couvering 1975, 65.

23. Van Couvering 1980; Axelrod and Raven 1977.

24. Andrews and Van Couvering 1975.

25. A savanna is a "well-drained grassy vegetation with 10% to 40%

cover by trees" (Retallack, Dugas, and Bestland 1990).

26. Andrews and Van Couvering 1975; Van Couvering 1980; Retallack,
Dugas, and Bestland 1990.

27. Andrews and Van Couvering 1975; Van Couvering 1980; Axelrod
and Raven 1977; Maglio 1978; Bernor 1985; Vrba 1985.

28. Kay 1981; Pilbeam 1985.

29. Greenfield 1980, 1983; Andrews and Cronin 1982; Conroy et al.
1990.

30. Wolpoff 1982; Ciochon and Fleagle 1987.

31. dating the divergence of humankind: Data from DNA and other
biochemical, anatomical, and genetic analyses of differences between
humankind and the African apes suggest somewhat different dates for
the divergence of the human line. Estimates range from 10 to 4 my BP
(million years before present). See Sarich and Wilson 1967a, 1967b;
Cronin 1983; Sibley and Ahlquist 1984; Andrews and Cronin 1982.
New data suggest that human beings are most closely related to
chimpanzees and that gorillas diverged earlier (Miyamoto, Slightom,
and Goodman 1987). Some of this research is in question however
(Lewin 1987b).

32. Veit 1982.

33. Nadler 1975.

34. Veit 1982.

35. Fossey 1983.

36. Darwin 1871; Freud 1918; Engels [1884] 1954.

37. Lucretius 1965, 162-63.

38. Kano 1979; Kano and Mulavwa 1984.

39. Kano 1979; Badrian and Malenky 1984.

40. De Waal 1987; Thompson-Handler, Malenky, and Badrian 1984;

Kano and Mulavwa 1984.

41. Kuroda 1984; De Waal 1987; Savage-Rumbaugh and Wilkerson

1978.

42. De Waal 1987.

43. Ford and Beach 1951.

44. De Waal 1987.

45. Kano 1980.

46. face-to-face coitus in nature: Several animals copulate face-to-face

on some occasions, including gorillas (Nadler 1975), orangutans
(Galdikas 1979), siamangs (Chivers 1978), and whales and porpoises
(Harrison 1969).

332 NOTES (pages 131-39)

47

48

49

50 51

52

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

63 64

65 66

67 68 69

Coolidge 1933; Zihlman et al. 1987; Zihlman 1979; Susman 1984.

Ellen Ingmanson, anthropologist, personal communication.

McGinnis 1979; Goodall 1986.

Tutin 1979; McGinnis 1979; McGrew 1981; Goodall 1986.

McGrew 1981; Goodall 1986; De Waal 1982; McGinnis 1979.

McGinnis 1979; Tutin 1979; Goodall 1986; McGrew 1981.

Pusey 1980.

McGinnis 1979; Tutin 1979; Goodall 1986.

Tutin and McGinnis 1981.

Bygott 1979; Goodall et al. 1979; Wrangham 1979b; Goodall 1986.

Goodall et al. 1979.

Bygott 1974, J 979; Goodall et al. 1979; Goodall 1986.

Teleki 1973a, 1973b; Goodall 1986.

Teleki 1973a; McGrew 1981.

Plooij 1978.

Goodall 1968, 1970, 1986; McGrew 1981.

DeWaal 1989.

McGrew 1979, 1981; also see Boesch and Boesch 1984.

Goodall 1970, 1986; McGrew 1974, 1981.

Goodall 1986.

Fouts 1983.

Moss 1988.

Tanner 1981; McGrew 1981; Fisher 1982; Mansperger 1990; Foley and

Lee 1989.
7 Out of Eden: A Theory on the Origin of Monogamy and Desertion

1. Hay and Leakey 1982.

>. the terms hominoid and hominid: Traditionally anthropologists

used the term hominoid to designate the ancestors of the great apes
and humankind. The term hominid they used to designate the
ancestors of human beings only. Since then the science of cladistics
has matured. This school of thought maintains that species should be
grouped according to the recency of their common ancestry, and
because of the distant biochemical relationship between humans and
orangutans and the close biochemical similarities between humans,
chimpanzees, and gorillas, some of these scientists would like to
change these terms accordingly. I use the traditional term, hominoid,
to designate all ancestors of the apes and people and hominid to
signify the ancestors of humanity only (see Marks 1989).

3. Leakey and Hay 1979; Hay and Leakey 1982.

4. Leakey et al. 1976; White 1977, 1980.

5. Johanson and Edey 1981; Johnston 1982; Lewin 1983a.

6. Johanson and White 1979; see Johnston 1982; Susman, Stern, and
Jungers 1985; Jungers 1988; McHenry 1986.

7. Johanson and White 1979; White 1985; Tuttle 1990.

8. Van Couvering 1980.

9. Ibid.; Vrba 1985; Axelrod and Raven 1977; Bernor 1985.

10. Pilbeam 1985.

11. Binford 1981, 1985; Blumenschine 1986, 1987, 1989; Shipman

1986; Potts 1988; Sinclair, Leakey, and Norton-Griffiths 1986; Lewin
1987b.

12. Tunnell 1990; Schaller and Lowther 1969; Blumenschine 1986.

13. scavenging among nonhuman primates: Goodall reported
scavenging among the chimps at the Gombe Stream Reserve,
Tanzania, on ten occasions. On most of them, a chimp returned to eat
meat left behind after a group of chimps had made a kill earlier in the
day. In one case, a chimp stole the limp body of a monkey as Goodall
was photographing it. Gombe chimps ignored the fresh meat of a dead
bushbuck fawn and guinea fowl. But on four occasions chimps in the
nearby research site at the Mahale Mountains scavenged the carcasses
of blue duikers or bushbucks (Goodall 1986). Savannah baboons also
scavenge (Strum 1990; Cavallo and Blumenschine 1989).

14. Cavallo 1990; Cavallo and Blumenschine 1989.

15. McHenry 1986; Ryan and Johanson 1989.

16. Gaulin and Konner 1977.

17. MODERN HUNTING-GATHERING PEOPLES AS MODELS FOR

HOMINID EVOLUTION: In the 1960s it became fashionable among
anthropologists to use the !Kung as a model to reconstruct life as it
may have been during our hunting-gathering past (Lee 1968). Today
this has become unstylish. Wilmsen (1989) argues that the !Kung have
been in contact with surrounding pastoralist peoples for several
centuries and that their appearance as foragers is a function of recent
historical events (ibid.). Thus the !Kung do not represent the pristine
hunting-gathering society anthropologists once thought they did; nor
do they provide a suitable model for understanding life in the past.

Recently anthropologists have begun to analyze the hunting and

gathering activities of traditional peoples in terms of "optimal foraging
strategies." This line of investigation contends that a society will vary
its daily quest for food, depending on the ease of acquisition and
processing, on the dependability, quantity, and quality of the food
source, and on

several other factors, so as to maximize its intake of nutrients while

minimizing its expenditure of energy, time, and risk (Hawkes et al.
1982; Tor-rence 1989). Hence because we do not know the specific
micro-environment of East Africa in past millennia, we cannot be sure
that modern hunter-gatherers are reasonable models for a
reconstructing of past populations.

With these caveats, it remains fair to say that the traditional !Kung
lived in an environment basically similar to that of early hominids and
that they displayed a social organization remarkably uncontaminated
by outside influences. So I shall continue to use the !Kung as a model
in the attempt to understand our past. (See Schrire 1984; Solway and
Lee 1990; Wilmsen and Denbow 1990.)

18. Sahlins 1972.

19. Darwin 1871, 434.

20. Tanner and Zihlman 1976; Zihlman and Tanner 1978; Zihlman
1981; Tanner 1981.

21. Potts 1988; Watanabe 1985.

22. fatherhood across species: Males of many species exhibit parental

behavior, although most are not monogamous. Male parental
investment occurs in two forms: (a) direct care, such as feeding young,
carrying infants, baby-sitting, sleeping in contact with young,
grooming young, retrieving, and/or playing with young; (b) indirect
care, such as defending resources, stockpiling food for infants,
building shelters for young, helping pregnant or nursing females,
marking and/or maintaining a territory, defending and patrolling
borders of a range, expelling intruders, and/or calling to drive
competitors away (Kleiman and Malcolm 1981; also see Hewlett 1992).

23. Wittenberger and Tilson 1980; Kleiman 1977; Orians 1969; Lack
1968; Mock and Fujioka 1990.

24. monogamy in cross-species perspective: Several circumstances

operate together to produce monogamy, and researchers provide
alternative explanations for the evolution of monogamy in different
creatures. I am particularly influenced by the work of Devra Kleiman—
specifically by her contention that monogamy occurs "whenever more
than a single individual (the female) is needed to rear the young"
(Kleiman 1977, 51). This was said differently by Ember and Ember
(1979): "Heterosexual partnerships develop wherever the need of the
mother to obtain her nutrition interferes with the care of the young.
The duration of this bond is dependent upon the parental care time." I
think this factor was critical to the evolution of monogamy in Homo
sapiens. For discussions of monogamy in birds and mammals, see
Kleiman 1977; Wittenberger and Tilson 1980; Lack 1968; Orians 1969;
Rutberg 1983; Peck and Feldman 1988; Mock and Fujioka 1990.

25. precocial young: Creatures that deliver their young in a state of

relative maturity, as opposed to immaturity, are said to deliver
"precocial" young. Horses provide a good example; a foal can see and
walk a few hours after birth.

26. Kleiman 1977; Henry 1985; Lloyd 1980; Zimen 1980; Gage 1979;
Rue 1969.

27. Trivers 1972; Emlen and Oring 1977.

28. Henry 1985; Lloyd 1980; Zimen 1980; Gage 1979; Rue 1969.

29. Orians 1969; Mock and Fujioka 1990.

30. Eugene Morton, Dept. of Ornithology, Smithsonian Institution,

personal communication.

31. SEXUAL DIMORPHISM, POLYGYNY, AND MONOGAMY: In

many polygynOUS

species, males battle for the privilege of becoming harem master, the
weak and small are driven off, and the large males breed—selecting for
large males. Because the bones unearthed at Hadar and Laetoli were of
different sizes, some anthropologists suggest that these individuals
had a polygynous breeding system. This argument has several
problems, (a) The correlation between large males, small females, and
polygyny is not a regularity of nature. The exceptions are so extensive
that anthropologists now postulate that there is no necessary
connection between degree of sexual dimorphism and mating strategy
(Frayer and Wolpoff 1985; Mock and Fujioka 1990). (b) Very few fossil
bones are found at Hadar and Laetoli and small sample sizes often say
nothing about whole populations (Gaulin and Boster 1985). (c) The
size differences in these bones can be explained by other ecological
forces. Scavenging and hunting (as well as serial monogamy) may have
selected for large males whereas Lucy's diminutive frame may have
been a compensation for the demands of bearing young. Because of
pregnancy and lactation, female mammals need extra calories; they
must eat for two and then nurse a child, so the smaller Lucy was, the
less she needed to feed herself. For more data on sexual dimorphisms,
see Hall 1982.

32. Cohen 1980; Hassan 1980; Lee 1980; Short 1976, 1984; Konner
and Worthman 1980; Simpson-Hebert and Huffman 1981; Lancaster
and Lancaster 1983; Frisch 1978.

33. Birdsell 1979.

34. Galdikasand Wood 1990.

35. Raymond Hames, Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of Nebraska,

personal communication.

36. Briggs 1970.

37. Gorer 1938.

38. Heider 1976.

39. Lancaster and Lancaster 1983.

40. FOUR-YEAR HUMAN BIRTHING CYCLE MODERN

VARIATIONS, APE ORIGINS: Modern living has changed this general
four-year human birthing cycle. Even continually breast-feeding
women in India, Bangladesh, the United States, and Scotland begin to
ovulate about five to eighteen months after delivering a child
(Simpson-Hebert and Huffman 1981; Short 1984). Thus modern birth
spacing can be as short as two years or even less. This is, at present,
explained by the "critical fatness" hypothesis. In the 1970s Rose Frisch
and colleagues proposed that a woman needs adequate stores of body
fat to trigger ovulation (Frisch and Revelle 1970; Frisch 1978, 1989).
Because of the modern diet high in calories, lack of exercise, and
limited nursing frequency, women often ovulate and get pregnant a
few months after childbirth.

Modern patterns of birth spacing do not conform to traditional

patterns, however. When our ancestors walked miles to collect dinner,
when they ate fruit and lean meat, and women nursed their infants
continually, fat stores were lower and women probably bore their
young about four years apart (Lancaster and Lancaster 1983). Data on
birth spacing among the apes support the antiquity of this
reproductive pattern. Among chimpanzees and gorillas, birth spacing
is in general approximately four to five years, whereas birth intervals
among orangutans are often about eight years (Allen et al. 1982;
Galdikas and Wood 1990).

41. Tanner 1981; McGrew 1981; Fisher 1982; Foley and Lee 1989;
Man-sperger 1990.

42. Strum 1990; Smuts 1985, 1992.

43. early hominid group size: Birdsell (1968) proposed that early
hominid bands were composed of about twenty-five individuals, half
of whom were adults. I think this standard model is a reasonable one
for early hominid social groups. (Also see Foley and Lee 1989.)

44. Laura Betzig, Evolution and Human Behavior Program, University

of Michigan, personal communication.

45. adaptive reasons for males to "remarry": Among apes males tend
to seek copulation with older, more mature females rather than with
adolescents—presumably because females with young have a good
reproductive track record. This raises the question, Why would
ancestral hominid males seek to form pair-bonds with young females
rather than with more mature ones? The answer, I think, lies in the
ecology of monogamy. In monogamous species the male will invest
time and energy rearing his offspring himself. Hence the values of
youth—such as fresh eggs, a supple body, a resilient personality, and a
long reproductive future—may be more important to a male than the
female's reproductive track record.

46. adaptive reasons for females to "remarry": Psychologist David

Buss (Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Michigan, personal
communication)

argues that once a woman produced a child, her reproductive value

went down, making her less attractive to prime males. Hence as a
woman aged, her subsequent pair-bonds were with men of lower
reproductive worth. Thus serial monogamy was not an adaptive
strategy for ancestral females. This argument is logical. But several
practical variables must be considered, (a) Band size and infrequency
of interband contact may have reduced opportunities for a female to
acquire a prime mate on her first mateship, providing her with the
opportunity to "marry up" on her second try. (b) The female's first
mate's reproductive value might go down dramatically as a result of
injury; hence although her second mate might not be prime, he would
be of higher reproductive value than the first, (c) A young male was
probably strong and quick but inexperienced at hunting and
protecting, whereas an older male was undoubtedly more experienced
at hunting, scavenging, and fathering (as well as economically
burdened by previous wives and children). The reproductive value of
males thus probably varied enormously with factors other than age.
(d) A female's reproductive value may have gone up with age if she
became a more proficient provider and remained fertile, thereby
attracting more prime males in subsequent mateships. I suspect the
reproductive value of each male and female rose or fell according to
several variables; the vicissitudes of the environment added more
variables as well. Hence a reproductive strategy of flexible
"opportunistic" serial monogamy would have been adaptive for
females.
47. Bertram 1975; Schaller 1972; Hausfater and Hrdy 1984.

48. Daly and Wilson 1988.

49. Tylor 1889, 267-68.

50. Friedl 1975.

8 Eros: Emergence of the Sexual Emotions

1. Liebowitz 1983.

2. Tennov 1979; Money 1980.

3. Shostak 1981, 268.

4. Jankowiak and Fischer 1992.

5. Liebowitz 1983, 90.

6. Bischof 1975; Wickler 1976.

7. sites of attachment: Ethologists note that animals attach (seek and

maintain proximity) to several different things: an object, such as a
tree or fence; a site, such as a field or patch of beach; or an individual
or group of conspecifics, such as an infant, a mate, or a congregation of
cohorts. People attach to all of the above-mentioned phenomena: to a
home, to certain

pieces of land, and to children, relatives, and friends. Several scientists

have confirmed that the motivation to attach is instinctual. See
Wickler 1976; Bowlby 1969.

8. attachment in animals: Infant puppies, baby monkeys, chicks, and

guinea pigs cry when their mother goes away—even if they are warm,
comfortable, and satiated. Their heart races, their blood pressure
increases, and their body temperature rises as "separation anxiety"
escalates into panic. When they are administered endorphins or other
natural opiates, however, these infants calm down. The locus ceruleus,
an area in the brain stem, and other loci in the brain also play a role in
episodic panic and anxiety attacks. See Liebowitz 1983.

9. Michael Trupp, New York City psychiatrist, personal

communication.

10. Bowlby 1969.

11. Bieberetal. 1962; Ruse 1988.

12. Bell and Weinberg 1978.

13. Ruse 1988.

14. Merry Ratliff Muraskin, New York therapist and anthropologist,

personal communication.

15. Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin, 1948; Kinsey et al. 1953; Silverstein
1981; Ruse 1988.

16. Adams 1980.

17. Daly and Wilson 1988.

18. Stephens 1963.

19. Hiatt 1989.

20. Goodall 1986.

21. Hiatt 1989.

22. David Buss, Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Michigan, personal

communication.

23. Weiss 1975.

24. Zuckerman, Buchsbaum, and Murphy 1980; Zuckerman 1971;

Weiss 1987.
25. Sostek and Wyatt 1981; Weiss 1987.

26. Kagan, Reznick, and Snidman 1988.

27. Donaldson 1971.

28. Mellen 1981; Donaldson 1971.

29. Darwin [1872] 1965.

9 The Siren's Web: Evolution of Human Sexual Anatomy

1. natural selection versus sexual selection: In terms of the

transmission of genes, there is no difference between natural selection
and sexual

selection. The distinction lies in the type of selection and the type of
adaptive results. Sexual selection is defined as selection for
characteristics that are specifically concerned with increasing one's
success at attracting and obtaining mates. The results are the
evolution of traits useful to sex and reproduction rather than
adaptations to the general environment. Following Darwin, it is
customary to distinguish two kinds of sexual selection: (a) intrasexual
selection is selection for traits that enable one to compete with
members of the same sex for mates of the opposite sex; (b) intersexual
selection is selection for characteristics that make one attractive to the
opposite sex. See Darwin 1871; Campbell 1972; Gould and Gould 1989.

2. Eberhard 1987, 1990.

3. Smith 1984; Eberhard 1985, 1990.

4. Daly and Wilson 1983.

5. Smith 1984.

6. Short 1977; Moller 1988; Lewin i988d.

7. Smith 1984.
8. Darwin 1871; Bateman 1948; Trivers 1972.

9. Morris 1967.

10. Gallup 1982.

11. Lancaster 1986.

12. Low, Alexander, and Noonan 1987.

13. Mascia-Lees, Relethford, and Sorger 1986.

14. Darwin 1871, 907.

15. Ibid. 881.

16. Alexander 1990.

17. Ford and Beach 1951.

18. neoteny: Ashley Montagu (1981) proposes that the human female
downward-tilted vaginal canal and face-to-face coitus evolved as a by-
product of "neoteny," or "growing young." Neoteny, meaning the
extention of childlike characteristics into adulthood, is a remarkable
phenomenon; we have several neotenous traits, including flat faces,
rounded skulls, playfulness, curiosity, and other emotional and
physical traits that nonhuman primates display in infancy but lose as
they mature. The downward-tilted vagina occurs in the embryo of all
mammals, but after birth the vaginal canal rotates backward and lies
parallel with the spine. Women retain this embryonic, vaginal
orientation into old age. Montagu (1981) hypothesizes that the
immature position of the human vagina (and all other neotenous
human traits) evolved as a package when evolution favored the growth
of the brain millennia ago. The expanding fetal brain required the
mother to deliver infants at an earlier stage of development. Along
with immature

delivery, Montagu reasons, humans evolved slower maturation, a

longer childhood, and the retention of many childlike traits into
adulthood— including a tipped vagina. New data argue against
Montagu's theory. Several neotenous features of the hominid skull
may have evolved at different times, indicating that each was subject
to direct selection (Lewin 1985).

19. Symons 1979.

20. Rancourt-Laferriere 1983.

21. ORGASM AS A MEANS OF STIMULATING PHYSIOLOGICAL

SENSATIONS OF

attachment: Oxytocin, a peptide secreted by the pituitary gland in the

brain, is secreted (at least in men) during orgasm and serves to
produce feelings of pleasure and sexual fulfillment (Angier 1991). This
suggests that orgasm could produce chemical responses that increase
feelings of attachment.

22. Smith 1984; Alcock 1987.

23. Burton 1971; De Waal 1982; Whitten 1982; Lancaster 1979; Hrdy
1981; Savage-Rumbaugh and Wilkerson 1978.

24. the fickleness of human female orgasm: From data on how people
learn, it is now established that partial or irregular reinforcement
drives them to more persistent trials than does a 100 percent reward.
So some suggest that sexual frustration caused by the irregular female
orgasmic response served to drive ancestral females to seek renewed
sexual intercourse (Diamond 1980).

25. sex outside of estrus in other animals: Female pygmy chimps

engage in sexual behavior with other females on a daily basis.
Heterosexual copulations also occur throughout most of the menstrual
cycle, although not all of it (Thompson-Handler, Malenky, and
Badrian 1984). Female dolphins reportedly masturbate and copulate
regularly, with few signs of periodicity (Diamond 1980). Females of
several primate species exhibit sexual behavior at times other than
midcycle estrus, such as during troop upheaval, during captivity, or
during pregnancy. One can cite many exceptions, but generally
speaking, the vast majority of heterosexual interactions among female
primates occur during midcycle estrus. See Fedigan 1982; Lancaster
1979; Hrdy 1981.

26. Kinseyetal. 1953; Ford and Beach 1951; Wolfe 1981.

27. Ford and Beach 1951.

28. menopause: The complex programmed cessation of ovulation

known as menopause, which occurs in all middle-aged women, does
not appear to occur in other primates or other mammals, although
elephants, pilot whales, and some primates exhibit some signs of
menopause in advanced age (Alexander 1990, Pavelka and Fedigan
1991). Some scientists cur-

rently think menopause evolved in ancestral hominids as an adaptive

strategy to aid existing offspring and other genetic relatives, in lieu of
producing new ones that would require many years of investment.
Hence the postmenopausal mother could be grandmother and baby-
sitter to grandchildren. Menopause could also be the by-product of the
increased human life span or a pleiotropic effect (Pavelka and Fedigan
1991). Perhaps the hominid female's high postmenopausal libido
evolved to enable them to maintain their pair-bonds (and the political-
social coalitions these accrued), as well as enabling them to continue
to garner extra resources from "extramarital" copulations. See
Alexander 1990; Dawkins 1976; Pavelka and Fedigan 1991.

29. Strassman 1981; Alexander and Noonan 1979; Turke 1984; Fisher
1975, 1982; Lovejoy 1981; Burley 1979; Small 1988; Gray and Wolfe
1983; Benshoof and Thornhill 1979; Daniels 1983; Burleson and
Trevathan 1990; Hrdy 1983.

30. Teleki 1973a; Goodall 1986.

31. Fisher 1975, 1982.

32. Rosenblum 1976.

33. NATURAL PEAKS IN THE HUMAN FEMALE SEX DRIVE:
Studies Suggest that

the peak of a woman's sexual activity occurs at midcycle (Hrdy 1981).

Married women given a variety of contraceptive devices exhibited a
rise in female-initiated sex drive during ovulation under most
conditions; this was suppressed by the use of oral contraceptives
(Adams, Gold, and Burt 1978). Intercourse peaked among a sample of
American women soon after the end of menstruation, however (Udry
and Morris 1977). Other studies indicate that American wives (as well
as women in other cultures) experience a peak of excitability
immediately before or after menstruation (Ford and Beach 1951;
Kinsey et al. 1953). These data lead me to propose that women have
two natural peaks in sex drive: one during and around ovulation and
another just before or during menstruation. The peak during ovulation
may be a holdover from estrus. The peak during menstruation may
have evolved with bipedalism; blood pools naturally in the pelvic area
prior to menstruation, and bipedalism may act to heighten tension on
genital tissues at this time.

34. Daniels 1983.

10 Why Can't a Man Be More like a Woman?

Development of the Human Sexual Brain

1. Gould 1981; Russett 1989.

2. Mead 1935, 280.

3. cultural determinism: The sharp swing toward "cultural

determinism" in the 1920s and 1930s did not focus on gender
differences alone but was part of an intellectual reaction to the
eugenics movement at the time and emphasized racial and ethnic
commonalities too. For a history of the nature/nurture debate and the
events of the early twentieth century that influenced this controversy,
see Degler 1991.
4. Jost 1972; Otten 1985.

5. Maccoby and Jacklin 1974; McGuinness 1976, 1979, 1985.

6. Benderly 1987, 1989.

7. Sherman 1978.

8. Benderly 1987.

9. McGuinness 1985, 89.

10. Kimura 1989; Weiss 1988.

11. Fennema and Leder 1990.

12. Maccoby and Jacklin 1974; McGuinness 1979; Fennema and Leder
1990.

13. Benbow and Stanley 1980, 1983.

14. Leder 1990; Benderly 1987.

15. Kimura 1989; Moir and Jessel 1989.

16. Silverman and Beals 1990.

17. Fennema and Leder 1990; Sherman 1978; Benderly 1987; Bower
1986.

18. Darwin 1871.

19. McGuinness 1979; McGuinness and Pribram 1979; Hall et al. 1978,
1977; Zuckerman et al. 1976; Hall 1984.

20. De Lacoste-Utamsing and Holloway, 1982.

21. Kimura 1983; McGuinness 1985.

22. Geschwind 1974; Springer and Deutsch 1985.

23. ORIGIN OF WOMEN'S INTUITION AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW:

Donald Sy-

mons (1979) suggests that women evolved the superior ability to pick
up nonverbal cues because early hominid females needed to choose
the appropriate mate to help raise their children. Those females who
could accurately "read" personality survived disproportionately
(Symons 1979). Sociologists point out that individuals of low status are
keener observers of high-status individuals than the reverse. And it
can be argued that women's intuition stems from their long historical
role as second-class citizens in patriarchal societies instead. Cultural
factors certainly play a part in one's ability to detect nonverbal cues.
But I suspect that women's ancestral roles as caretakers provided the
primary selective pressure for female intuitive skills.

24. Kimura 1989.

39

40

4i 42 43 44 45 46

47 48

McGuinness 1979, 1985; McGuinness and Pribram 1979. Whiting and

Whiting 1975. Konner 1982. Miller 1983.

Rossi 1984; Frayser 1985.

McGuinness 1979, 1985; McGuinness and Pribram 1979. Otten 1985;

Moir and Jessel 1989; Money and Ehrhardt 1972. McGrew 1981.
McGuinness 1979. Leakey 1971.

Behrensmeyer and Hill 1980; Brain 1981. Bunn and Kroll 1986.

Cavallo 1990; Cavallo and Blumenschine 1989.

more on scavenging: There is a great deal of controversy about the role
of scavenging in the early hominid diet. Pat Shipman, for example,
suggests that our ancestors scavenged in a group, rather than hunting,
and that they probably collected predominantly skin and tendons.
Thus "animal carcasses . . . were not systematically cut up and
transported for sharing at base camps." See Shipman 1984, 27;
Shipman 1987; Binford 1985. Potts 1984, 1988. Zihlman 1981.

Lewin 1987b; McHenry 1986. Brod 1987; Goleman 1986. Gilligan

1982a. Ellis and Symons 1990. Bower 1988a; Susman 1989, 1990.
Johanson and Shreeve 1989. Tobias 1991.

WHO MADE THE TOOLS AND BUTCHERED THE MEAT AT

OLDUVAI? Although recent data suggests that robust
australopithecines could have made and used tools and that these
creatures had a bulge in Broca's area in the brain, several lines of
evidence suggest that Homo habilis individuals made and stored these
tools, as well as devised the system of cache sites to butcher meat at
Olduvai two million years ago. (a) The reduced cheek teeth of Homo
habilis suggest that these creatures relied on meat (McHenry and
O'Brien 1986). (b) The increased cranial capacity of this species may
even have required the consumption of energy-rich foods such as meat
(Ambrose 1986). (c) The bones of Homo habilis lie in spacial patterns
consistent with those of the stone tools found at Olduvai, and

these patterns at Olduvai Gorge fit well with patterns of fossils and
tools left at Koobi Fora. (d) Several anatomical details of these fossil
bones suggest that Homo habilis is in the direct line toward
humankind.

n Women, Men, and Power: The Nature of Sexual Politics

i. Van Allen 1976.

2. Ibid.

3. Van Allen 1976; Okonjo 1976.

4. discussions of universal male dominance: Anthropologists have
proposed several reasons why men universally dominate women.
Some have pointed to biology: men are naturally stronger and more
aggressive; hence men have always dominated women (Sacks 1979).
Some have proposed a psychological explanation: men dominate
women to reject the powerful women in their lives (Whiting 1965).
Universal male dominance, others say, stems from female
reproductive functions. Because women bear children, they are tied to
the natural rather than the cultural world (Ortner and Whitehead
1981) or to the private rather than the public sector (Rosaldo 1974).
For anthropological discussions of universal male dominance and
theories of why gender relations vary cross-culturally, see Dahl-berg
1981; Reiter 1975; Etienne and Leacock 1980; Leacock 1981; Friedl
1975; Harris 1977; Sanday 1981; Sacks 1979; Ortner and Whitehead
1981; Rosaldo and Lamphiere 1974; Collier 1988.

5. Elkin 1939; Hart and Pilling i960; Rohrlich-Leavitt, Sykes, and

Weather-ford 1975; Berndt 1981.

6. Montagu 1937, 23.

7. Kaberry 1939; Goodale 1971; Berndt 1981; Bell 1980.

8. Reiter 1975; Slocum 1975.

9. Whyte 1978.

lo. traditional societies with powerful women: Pygymy women of the

Congo, Navajo women of the American Southwest, Iroquois women of
New York, Tlingit women of southern Alaska, Algonkian women of the
American Northeast, Balinese women, Semang women of the tropical
forests of the Malay Peninsula, women in Polynesia, women in parts of
the Andes, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Caribbean, Trobriand
Islanders of the Pacific, and women in many other societies
traditionally wielded substantial economic and social power. See
Sanday 1981; Etienne and Leacock 1980; Dahlberg 1981; Reiter 1975;
Sacks 1979; Weiner 1976.
Li. Leacock 1980, 28.

i2. Sanday 1981, 135.

13. types of power: Power in traditional societies comes in several

forms. Sociologist Robert Alford divides power into three distinct
varieties, however: (a) the ability to influence or persuade; (b)
authority or formal institutionalized command; (c) what sociologists
sometimes call hegemony, which is almost identical to one meaning of
culture because it refers to the unquestioned, accepted mores of a
culture that bestow power on one gender or individual rather than on
another (Alford and Friedland 1985). See chapter 15 of this book for a
discussion of the evolution of rank and authority.

14. Friedl 1975; Sacks 1971; Sanday 1974; Whyte 1978.

15. Friedl 1975.

16. Shostak 1981, 243.

17. Rogers 1975.

18. the human relations area file: Many anthropologists regard this file
as highly uneven and flawed because the data on each culture are
taken by a different ethnographer. Each ethnographer has asked
different questions in different ways, recorded his or her perceptions
under different circumstances, and had his or her own subjective
perspectives. The data in this file were then distilled by Whyte and his
colleagues—further reducing the likelihood of accuracy. I use Whyte's
analysis here because I do not wish to overlook an available source and
because my experience with the ethnographic literature suggests that
Whyte's conclusions on this topic represent some general cross-
cultural truths.

19. Whyte 1978.

20. Belkin 1989; Hochschild 1989.

21. Sanday 1981.

22. De Waal 1982, 1989.

23. De Waal 1982, 187.

24. Hrdy 1981; Fedigan 1982.

12 Almost Human: Genesis of Kinship and the Teenager

1. use of fire — a debate: Several anthropologists currently propose

that the fire at the Swartkrans cave and other fires at sites in Africa,
the Near East, Asia, and Europe dating between 1.8 million and
120,000 years ago occurred naturally—the result of brushfires,
volcanic eruptions, lightning, spontaneous combustion, or burning
branches that fell through cracks in cave ceilings (James 1989; Binford
1981, 1985, 1987). But there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence
that humankind living in this period did make and use fire, (a) Bits of
charcoal, burned bone, charred stones, baked

clay, reddened earth, and other indications of fire prior to 120,000

years ago have been found at thirty-four sites in Africa, the Near East,
Asia, and Europe (James 1989). (b) Small brushfires occurred
annually during the dry season, so humans had regular opportunities
to experiment with fire— as well as the intelligence to control fire, (c)
Caves are damp, cool, still places; they do not provide ideal conditions
for lightning or the spontaneous combustion of decaying dung, (d)
Lightning rarely causes extensive grass fires on the plains; in fact,
mankind may have created the grasslands of East Africa with fire;
when modern people leave an area, savannas rapidly return to a more
natural landscape of grasslands scattered with brush and trees, (e) In
numerous caves across Africa and Eurasia are found the bones of
ancestral hominids dating from this time range; could they have lived
in freezing caves without controlling flame? These data have led
several anthropologists to conclude that it is highly likely that
mankind living at this time made campfires. See James 1989; Straus
1989.
2. Brain and Sillen 1988.

3. Brown et al. 1985.

4. homo erectus and sexual dimorphism: Homo erectus fossils show a

reduction in sexual dimorphism in body size over earlier hominid
forms. In the endnotes to chapter 7, however, I maintain that sexual
dimorphisms in the size of male and female bones can tell us nothing
about ancient reproductive strategies; hence I do not discuss the
evolution of this trait here.

5. Brink 1957.

6. Behrensmeyer 1984. Gibbons 1990b.

Montagu 1961; Gould 1977; Fisher 1975, 1982; Trevathan 1987. human
secondary altriciality: Human newborns are not uniformly altricial;
instead, they display a mosaic of features, some of which exhibit more
altriciality than others (Gibson 1981). Scientists at present debate
whether the "secondary altriciality" of some neonatal traits evolved in
response to cephalo-pelvic disproportion (Lindburg 1982). I use the
standard explanation that secondary altriciality is a response to
cephalo-pelvic disproportion. See Montagu 1961; Gould 1977;
Bromage 1987; Trevathan 1987.

10. Montagu 1961, 156.

11. Martin 1982; Lewin 1982.

12. Trevathan 1987; Bromage 1987.

13. Fisher 1975, 1982.

14. Trevathan 1987.

15. Bromage 1987; Smith 1986.

16. Lancaster and Lancaster, 1983; Lancaster in preparation.

17. Ackerman 1989.

18. evolution of hunting — a debate: Some anthropologists doubt that

Homo erectus hunted large animals; they contend that Homo erectus
subsisted primarily as a scavenger (Binford 1981, 1985, 1987). I think
Homo erectus was a hunter of big game for several reasons: fa) Today
there are over 130,000 pounds of big game in one square mile of
Uganda's Albert National Park and archaeological data suggest that
wild game was prevalent a million years ago. (b) Homo erectus
individuals made stone tools that were efficient for butchering game,
and these tools have been found along watercourses where large beasts
gather, (c) Hawks hunt; sharks hunt; wolves hunt in coordinated
packs; chimpanzees hunt large animals relative to their size and leave
no archaeological record of their kills; one hardly needs a modern
human brain to kill and eat meat. I think Homo erectus hunted, killed,
and shared meat a million years ago.

19. J ia and Wei wen 1990.

20. archiac homo sapiens: Several anthropologists think that archaic

Homo sapiens, rather than Homo erectus, is the species represented at
these later sites (WolpofT 1984). Moreover, some think that Homo
erectus was a single species that changed gradually over time (ibid.);
others think that these bones represent different varieties or even
separate species and that only one strain led to modern Homo sapiens
(Lewin 1989).

13 The First Affluent Society: A Flowering of Conscience

1. Conkey 1984.

2. Service 1978; PfeifTer 1982.

3. Gargett 1989; Chase and Dibble 1987.

4. For a review of the arguments surrounding the evolution of Homo

sapiens neanderthalensis, see Delson 1985; Mellars 1989.
5. Holloway 1985.

6. Arensburg 1989.

7. Lieberman 1984; Laitman 1984; Laitman, Heimbuch, and Crelin

1979.

8. Leroi-Gourhan 1975; Solecki 1971, 1989.

9. Gargett 1989; Chase and Dibble 1987.

10. Mellars 1989.

11. origin of homo sapiens sapiens — theories: Some anthropologists

think Homo erectus spread out of Africa about a million years ago and
then gradually evolved into modern peoples along parallel lines in
different regions of Africa and Eurasia—the "candelabra" model.
Others think a

single population of modern peoples originated in Africa more than

100,000 years ago and dispersed through the rest of the Old World,
replacing more-primitive existing human populations (including the
Neanderthals) as they spread—the "Noah's ark" or "out of Africa"
hypothesis. African and Middle Eastern sites dating to over 70,000
years b.p. show evidence of fully modern peoples. By 30,000 years ago
the skeletal remains of fully modern peoples are also found in
Southeast Asia, Australia, New Guinea, and the New World.

12. For alternative hypotheses regarding the origins of Upper

Paleolithic art, culture, and political organization, see Conkey 1983;
Price and Brown 1985; Johnson and Earle 1987; Cohen 1977.

13. Gladkih, Kornieta, and Soffer 1984.

14. White 1986.

15. Ibid.; Mellars 1989.

16. White 1989a, 1989b.

17. early ceramics — a ritual purpose? Archaeological remains from
Czechoslovakia suggest that these figurines were used in ceremonies.
On the lower slopes of the Pavlov Hills, in what is today modern
Moravia, these ancestors built their homes overlooking the confluence
of two meandering rivers some 26,000 years ago. Eighty meters above
their village on the rocky slope, they made a circular depression
domed on two sides, one of several kilns found in this area. In it were
thousands of shattered fragments of hard, durable ceramic figurines
made of mammoth fat mixed with bone ash, local loess, and a bit of
clay. Only one sculpture from these sites in Moravia remains intact, a
wolverine the size of your fist. Either our ancestors were dreadful
potters, or they intended to blow up their art in order to divine or for
some other ritual purpose (Vandiver et al. 1989).

18. Fox 1972, 1980; Bischof 1975b; Frayser 1985.

19. Cohen 1964; Fox 1980; Malinowski 1965.

20. Tylor 1889.

21. EXOGAMY AS A PREFERRED BREEDING STRATEGY:

Anthropologists are

careful to distinguish between sexual rules, such as the incest taboo,

and marriage regulations. These phenomena are closely connected,
however, and the distinct political advantages of breeding outside of
the immediate family may well have stimulated the common human
marriage rule of exogamy, marrying outside of the community. In a
study of cross-cultural marriage patterns in sixty-two societies,
Suzanne Frayser (1985) reports that in 35 percent of them it is
prescribed behavior to marry outside of the community; in 42 percent
of them one is supposed to marry within one's community; in the
balance, no preference is specified.

22. inbreeding: It often takes many generations of extremely close

inbreeding before harmful genes become selected and dreaded
diseases emerge in
a family line. In fact, a certain amount of inbreeding is necessary to
accentuate positive traits; this is why people breed dogs for
temperament or endurance, for example. For good genetic health, a
species needs enough inbreeding to fix positive traits and enough
outbreeding to mask deleterious recessive genes and enrich the
genome with vital fresh genetic material. So although the incest taboo
(mating with nuclear-family members) is universal, marriages
between first cousins are obligatory or preferred in many societies
(Bischof 1975; Daly and Wilson 1983).

23. Westermarck 1934.

24. Spiro 1958.

25. Shepher1971, 1983.

26. Bischof 1975b; De Waal 1989.

27. Sade 1968; Bischof 1975b.

28. Bischof 1975b; De Waal 1989; Daly and Wilson 1983.

29. Frayser 1985, 182.

30. Frazer [1922] 1963, 702.

31. Darwin 1871,47.

32. Chance 1962.

33. Fox 1972, 292.

34. Ibid. 287.

35. Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989.

36. Damon 1988; Kohlberg 1969.

37. Kohlberg 1969; Gilligan and Wiggins 1988; Damon 1988; Kagan
and Lamb 1987.

38. Darwin 1871,493.

39. Maxwell 1984.

40. Alexander 1987, 102.

14 Fickle Passion: Romance in Yesteryears

1. Shostak 1981; Gregor 1985.

2. age difference between bride and groom: It is standard in cultures

around the world that the groom is several years older than his bride
(Daly and Wilson 1983).

3. Shostak 1981, 226.

4. The Herero are cattle-tending peoples who settled in the area of the
Dobe !Kung in the mid-1920s.

5. private sex: Around the world people seek privacy for coitus.
Chimpanzees, baboons, and other primates occasionally usher a
partner behind a bush to copulate, but normally primates have coitus
within view of con-

specifics. The human drive to seek private, uninterrupted, concealed

sex is probably another trait born on the African veldt as our ancient
forebears began to pair millennia ago.

foreplay: The people of Ponape and the Trobriand Islanders of the

insular Pacific spend hours at foreplay, whereas the Lepcha of Sikkim
do almost no precopulatory caressing. The amount of foreplay varies
from one society to the next. From a survey of worldwide studies of
foreplay, Goldstein (1976a) lists types of precoital contact in
descending order of worldwide prevalence. General body fondling is
most important; we seem instinctively to hug, pat, and stroke before
making love. "Simple kissing," mouth-to-mouth contact, is so nearly
universal that it is probably basic to our human sexual repertoire as
well, despite the few cultures that find kissing disgusting (Ford and
Beach 1951). Tongue kissing is very common too. Fondling the
woman's breasts comes next in descending order of worldwide habits
of precopulatory sex, then touching the woman's genitals, oral
stimulation of her breasts, caressing the man's genitals, fellatio,
cunnilingus, anilingus, and, last, painful stimulations of body parts
(Goldstein 1976a). Other species also engage in foreplay. Birds tap
their bills together. Dogs lick. Whales stroke each other with their
flippers. Most birds and mammals engage in some sort of
precopulatory fondling.

couvade: Several societies in the world have an institution known as

the couvade, from the French couver, "to incubate or hatch." This
custom dictates that the father imitate some of his wife's behavior
during and around pregnancy and birth. In some cultures the man acts
out the physical pain of childbirth; in others he may simply observe
certain dietary taboos. The Mehinaku demand only some dietary
restrictions. Occasionally the father (who is not the woman's husband)
will follow the restrictions of the couvade; more often he forgoes these
traditions, lest he reveal his relationship with the newborn's mother.

puberty rituals: Most cultures mark puberty with ceremonies for both
boys and girls, so it is likely that in our ancestry both genders
underwent puberty rituals prior to wedding. Because arranged
marriages are also common around the world, it is probable that
among our ancestors, parents regularly selected the first spouse for an
adolescent child. See Frayser 1985.

premarital sex: In most cultures of the insular Pacific and in many

parts of sub-Sarahan Africa and Eurasia, people tolerate premarital
sex. In many places around the Mediterranean, premarital sex is
strictly forbidden. In 82 percent of sixty-one cultures recorded, the
same limitations (or lack of restrictions) apply to both genders equally;
in these societies there is no double standard in regard to premarital
sex. In those cultures where there is a double standard, the boy
sometimes gets harsher punishment than his girlfriend; many of these
societies are in sub-Saharan Africa (Frayser 1985, 205).
10. age at menarche: Today the median age at menarche for American
white girls is 12.8; for American black girls it is 12.5. Early puberty is
also common in contemporary European populations. Age at
menarche has slowly declined over the last 150 years in American and
European cultures, however. In 1840 the average age at menarche was
16.5-17.5 in several European peoples. This is not to suggest that
menarche has been getting progressively earlier throughout human
evolution. Among the classical Greeks and Romans, girls may have
reached menarche as early as age 13 or

14 (Eveleth 1986). As you recall, among hunting-gathering peoples

girls generally reach menarche between ages 16 and 17, suggesting that
menarche occurred during late teenage in ancestral populations and
that late menarche is typical of the human condition (Lancaster and
Lancaster 1983).

11. Clark 1980; Cohen 1989.

15 "Till Death Us Do Part": Birth of Western Double

Standards

1. Gregg 1988.

2. Ibid.

3. It is currently being debated whether domestication of plants and

animals in Europe was introduced by immigrants or whether these
practices spread as new ideas that were adopted by local foragers
(Howell 1987).

4. Nissen 1988; Clark 1980; Lewin 1988a; McCorriston and Hole 1991;
Blumler and Byrne 1991.

5. Whyte 1978.

6. Bullough 1976, 53.

7. abortion was not always illegal in Western history. The ancient

Greeks, for example, believed in small families and approved of
abortion. Abortion laws have varied dramatically in Western history,
according to varying social circumstances.

8. Whyte 1978.

9. Lacey 1973; Gies and Gies 1978; Lampe 1987.

10. Colossians 3:18.

11. Hunt 1959, 22.

12. Whyte 1978.

13. Leacock 1972.

14. Ibid. 120.

15. Whyte 1978.

16. primitive matriarchy: Despite insufficient evidence for the absence

or presence of a primitive matriarchy, several contemporary
academics de-

fend the concept (see Fluehr-Lobban 1979; Davis 1971; Gimbutas

1989). On the basis of the survival of female Greek and Roman deities,
mysterious female figures in European folklore and fairy tales, and
drawings of goddess-like figures on ancient pottery and in frescoes,
Gimbutas maintains that matriarchal societies existed in Europe seven
thousand years ago and that these peoples were then overrun by
marauders from the steppes of Russia who brought with them customs
of patrilineal descent and patriarchal rule.

17. Whyte 1978.

18. SOCIAL SUBORDINATION OF WOMEN IN AGRARIAN

CULTURES: A Survey of

ninety-three preindustrial societies shows that women in peasant

farming communities have less domestic authority, less ritual
solidarity with other women, and less control over property than do
women in gardening and hunting-gathering cultures. Farming women
resort more often to informal means of influence. Men express more
ritualized fear of women in these cultures. Women's work is less
valued, and less importance is placed on women's lives (Whyte 1978).

19. Leacock 1972; Etienne and Leacock 1980.

20. evolution of chiefdoms: Johnson and Earle (1987) argue that

European political organization characterized by permanent "big
men," or chiefs, arose in the Upper Paleolithic between 35,000 and
12,000 b.p. because of large-scale hunting and territorial defense in
highly populated areas of Europe, but that chiefs became
commonplace in Europe with the introduction of agriculture. For a
discussion of the evolution of human political organization, see
Carneiro 1991, 1987, 1981; Nissen 1988; Johnson and Earle 1987.

21. Whyte 1978, 169.

22. Goldberg 1973.

23. Davis 1964.

24. Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989, 267; Sapolsky 1983.

25. Velle 1982; Sapolsky 1983; Rose, Holaday, and Bernstein 1971;
Rose et al. 1974

26. Brown 1988; this trend is widely seen in the anthropological

literature.

27. McGuire, Raleigh, and Brammer 1982.

28. Raleigh et al., in press; Tiger 1992.

29. Frank 1985.

30. Goody 1983, 211; Queen and Habenstein 1974.

31. Bullough 1976; Lacey 1973.

32. Hunt 1959, 63; Carcopino 1973, 60; Phillips 1988.

33. Matthew 19:3-9.

Notes (pages 289-95) 353

34 35 36

37 38

39 40

4i

Phillips 1988.

Gies and Gies 1978; Bell 1973; Bullough 1978; Hunt 1959; Phillips
1988.

Gies and Gies 1978, 33.

Queen and Habenstein 1974, 265.

Gies and Gies 1978, 18; Dupaquier et al. 1981.

Bell 1973; Power 1973; Abrams 1973.

Phillips 1988.

Goody 1983, 211; Dupaquier et al. 1981; Phillips 1988; Stone 1990.

16 Future Sex: Forward to the Past

1. Lucretius 1965.

2. divorce rate: The divorce rate is much more difficult to estimate

than is generally thought. In 1989 the annual American divorce rate
was 4.7 per 1,000 persons—which means that about 5 out of every
1,000 people divorced during that year. This tells us nothing about
your chances of divorcing during the course of your life. To compute
this, demographers use the "life table approach." They examine the
lifetime divorce experience of adults in several successive age groups
and establish all the factors that contributed to the frequency of
divorce over time among the individuals in these cohorts. Then they
evaluate the present force of all these factors, anticipate new factors
that could contribute to divorce, and use all these data to estimate how
many people will divorce this year and in coming decades, present
estimates, projected from divorce trends in this century via this "life
table approach," are that 47.4 percent of all Americans who married in
1974 will eventually divorce—if divorce and death rates prevailing in
1975 continue (Cherlin 1981, 25). Another estimate: 54 percent of all
first marriages by women in the age category twenty-five to twenty-
nine in 1987 will end in divorce (Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988, 1).
For a comprehensive breakdown of the percentage of divorces by age,
number of children, and previous marital status, see London and
Foley Wilson 1988.

3. Cherlin 1981, 53; Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988, 32, 99; Glick
1975, 8; Espenshade 1985.

4. Cherlin 1978.

5. Glick 1975.

6. Harris 1981; Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988.

7. Evans 1987; Harris 1981; Cherlin 1981; Levitan, Belous, and Gallo
1988.

8. Cherlin 1981, 35.

10. Glick 1975; Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988.

11. birth control and divorce: Some scientists argue that the
introduction of the birth control pill, the intrauterine device, and
surgical sterilization all played significant roles in the declining
birthrate in the 1960s and subsequent decades. But the birthrate was
low during the Great Depression, when couples in economic crisis
wanted to postpone family life and these modern means of birth
control were not available (Cherlin 1981, 57). Birthrates also fell in the
early 1960s, before these contraceptive methods became widely
available (Harris 1981). In fact, birthrates have been declining over the
last hundred years, long before technological changes in contraception
occurred (Goldin 1990). These new forms of birth control may have
affected demographic trends in other ways, however. By using these
devices, more unmarried women can avoid pregnancy; thus fewer
women marry very young—probably increasing the average age at first
marriage and enabling more women to enter the job market sooner.
Demographer Andrew Cherlin (1981) concludes, however, that these
new forms of contraception were not major forces in the 1960s trend
toward later marriage, fewer children, and more divorce.

12. Harris 1981, 93.

13. Evans 1987.

14. Cherlin 1981.

15. Ibid.; Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988.

16. Easterlin 1980; also see Cherlin 1981; Espenshade 1985; Levitan,
Belous, and Gallo 1988.

17. Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988; Barringer 1989b; Cherlin 1987.

18. Fisher 1989.

19. Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988, 77.

20. Norman Goodman, Department of Sociology, SUNY, Stony Brook,

personal communication.

21. AGE AT MARRIAGE AND AGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

HUSBAND AND WIFE:

Late marriage is not the norm in traditional societies. In 69 percent of

forty-five traditional cultures surveyed, girls married when they were
less than 18; the age category with the highest frequency of brides was
12-15 (Frayser 1985, 208). In 74 percent of forty-two cultures, boys
were at least 18 or older when they wed; the largest age category in
which men wed was 18-21 (ibid.). Even in the United States about 25
percent of all women marry by age 19, and this figure has remained
constant since 1910 (Cherlin 1981, 10). In agrarian cultures the dowry
system often delayed marriage for a woman well into her twenties.
Late marriage in America today is largely a result of women's
completing college and entering the work force instead (Glick 1975).
Around the world husbands tend to be two to six

Notes (pages 298-303) 355

years older than their wives. In the United States the age difference
between husband and wife increases with the age of the groom
because men who divorce tend to remarry younger women (London
and Foley Wilson 1988).

22. Barringer 1991; Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988.

23. Lancaster and Lancaster 1983.

24. Harris 1981.

25. Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.; Blake 1989a, 1989b.

28. Hunt 1959.

29. Mead 1966; Kirkendall and Gravatt 1984.

30. Krier 1988.

31. Cherlin 1981; White 1987; Barringer 1989b; Stone 1990.

32. American and European divorce laws: For an overview of the

history of divorce laws and practices in the United States and Western
Europe, see Phillips 1988; Stone 1990; Bohannan 1985; Dupaquier et
al. 1981.

33. PERCENTAGE OF DIVORCED PEOPLE WHO REMARRY AND

TIMING OF REMARRIAGE: The Census Bureau reports that 76.3
percent of the women who divorce before age thirty eventually
remarry; 56.2 percent of those who divorce in their thirties remarry;
and 32.4 percent of those who divorce in their forties remarry
(Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988). About 75 percent of the women and
80 percent of the men who divorce will remarry (Glick 1975; Cherlin
1981; Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988). One-third of all young adults
today can expect to find themselves in a remarriage (Cherlin 1981, 69).
One-half of all remarriages take place within three years of the divorce
(Cherlin 1981; Furstenberg and Spanier 1984).

The median number of years between divorce and remarriage is 2.9

for American women under the age of thirty with no children, about
3.0 years for women with one to two children, and about 4.4 years for
women with three to five children (Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988).
Other data conclude that women typically remarry 4 years after
divorcing, whereas men typically remarry 3 years after divorcing
(London and Foley Wilson 1988). Demographer Paul Glick (1975)
reports that the average number of years between divorce and
remarriage is 3 years. The average and median number of years a child
spends in a single-parent home is 3.98 years (Marriage and Divorce
Today 1986).

remarriage rates have steadily increased since the 1930s with the
exception of the 1950s (Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988, 33). Slightly
more divorces occur among remarried couples than among first-
married pairs (Cherlin 1981; Furstenberg and Spanier 1984). Very few
men

and women marry more than twice (Levitan 1988). Glick reports that
women who divorce and remarry a never-married man end up with 3.1
children and that men and women who marry only once end up with
3.2 children. In remarriages between two divorced persons, men and
women end up with slightly fewer children—a total of 2.9 offspring
(Glick 1975).

34. Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988; Espenshade 1985; Cherlin 1987.

35. Cherlin 1981; Furstenberg and Spanier 1984.

36. Marriage and Divorce Today 1986.

37. Bohannan 1985; Levitan, Belous, and Gallo 1988.

38. Bohannan 1985.

39. Krier 1988.

40. more on associations: There is every reason to think that

individuals in kin-based societies formed family connections with
nonblood peers. But it is unlikely that these associations played the
same role they do in modern societies where kinship ties do not define
daily life (Leith Mullings, Department of Anthropology, CUNY
Graduate Center, personal communication). Moreover, associations
undoubtedly will not form in all American populations. For example, I
would expect to see them occur more frequently in urban than in rural
settings and more commonly in some ethnic groups that in others.

41. Eveleth 1986; Goldstein 1976.

42. Cetron and Davies 1989.

43. Ibid.

Appendix

Divorce charts

figure 1: Finland Divorce Profiles, 1950-1987

(A) Finland 1950

(B) Finland 1966

(C) Finland 1974

(D) Finland 1981

(E) Finland 1987

figure 2: The Four-Year Itch: Divorce Peaks, 62 Societies, All

Available Years, 1947-1989

figure 3: Egypt 1978 Divorce Profile

figure 4: The United States 1986 Divorce Profile

appendix: divorce charts

FIGURE l: FINLAND DIVORCE PROFILES, 1950-1987

(A) Finland 1950

§400

2 350

^300 o

£ 250

8 200 I 150

*2 ioo 1

I 50

z
;o 400

00

V350

I 300

| 250

^200 8

£ 150 15

t> 100

i_

"I 50

£ 800

2 700

1 600

| 500

l 400

I 300

^o 200

-| 100

z
n

Divorce Peak: 4 years

= yrs averaged

nnnr---

<1 1 " 2' 3' 4' 5'6' 7'8' 9' 10-14' 15-19' '20+

Number of Years Married When Divorce Occurred

>-H-

(B) Finland 1966

Divorce Peak: 3 years

= yrs averaged

r—-.

23456789 10-14' 15-19* 20n

Number of Years Married When Divorce Occurred

(C) Finland 1974

Divorce Peak: 4 years

-r^-H

yrs averaged
L

23456789 10-14' 15-19' 20+

Number of Years Married When Divorce Occurred

Appendix: Divorce Charts

359

5" 600

o"

1{ 500

oo

400

"I 300

I 200 **5

100

(D) Finland 1981

Divorce Peak: 4 years

= yrs averaged
::*!*,

<1 123456789 10-14* 15-19* 20+

Number of Years Married When Divorce Occurred

600-

2 500-j~400

•£ 300

I 200 -I 100

<1 123456789 10-14* 15-19* 20+

Number of Years Married When Divorce Occurred

Figures A-E show the divorce profiles for Finland in five years for
which data are available in the demographic yearbooks of the United
Nations. In 1987, for example, 84 couples divorced in less than a year
of marriage, 228 couples divorced after one year of marriage, 432
couples divorced after two years of marriage, and so forth. Most
divorces occurred between the fourth and fifth years of marriage. Data
on divorces occurring between 10 and 14 years of marriage and
between 15 and 19 years of marriage were averaged because the raw
data lumped them together. Divorces in the 20+ category were
designated 20-40 years married and averaged as well. In actuality,
divorces steadily declined with increasing number of years married. As
can be seen in these histograms, divorces regularly cluster around a
four-year peak, and this pattern shows little change despite steadily
increasing divorce rates during these decades.

appendix: divorce charts

figure 2: the four-year itch: Divorce Peaks, 62 Societies, All Available
Years, 1947-1989 (188 Cases)

3- 40 o

35

30

8 25 <

20 h 15 10 5

<1 1 23456789 10-14

Modal Number of Years Married When Divorce Occurred

Figure 2 shows the divorce profiles for 62 countries, areas and ethnic
groups in specific years between 1947 and 1989 were drawn (188
cases). Then the divorce peak (the mode) for each of these histograms
was marked as a box on this master chart. Finland 1987, for example,
is represented as one box in the column marked four. Thus human
beings in a variety of societies tend to divorce between the second and
fourth years of marriage, with a divorce peak during the fourth year.

Appendix: Divorce Charts

361

FIGURE 3: EGYPT 1978 DIVORCE PROFILE

25,000

20,000
15,000

£ 10,000

5,000

Divorce Peak: <1 Year

lito

= Years Averaged m m n m n.r-n nnnn

<1 1 23456789 10-14* 15-19* 20+

Modal Numbers of Years Married When Divorce Occurred

Figure 3 shows in Egypt 1978, as well as in almost all other Muslim

countries for which the United Nations has data between 1947 and
1989, most divorces occurred during less than one year of marriage,
and the longer a couple remained married the more likley they were to
stay together. Explanations for this variation are given in chapter 5.

appendix: divorce charts

FIGURE 4: THE UNITED STATES 1986 DIVORCE PROFILE

o 5 00

CM

15"

00 *■

4"

3"

Divorce Peak: 2 Years

%m\mk

overage

nnnnn,

<1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 25-29* 30-34' 35+ Number of Years

Married When Divorce Occurred

Figure 4 shows the divorce profile for the United States in 1986 as
taken from the Vital Statistics of the United States. Data on divorces
occurring between 25 and 29 years of marriage, between 30 and 34
years of marriage, and in the 35 + years category were averaged
because the raw data lumped them together. Most divorces occurred
between the second and third year of marriage—as in all other years I
examined between 1960 and 1989. An explanation for this consistant
divorce peak appears in chapter 5.

Bibliography

Abrams, A. 1973. Medieval women and trade. In Women: From the

Greeks to the French Revolution, ed. S. G. Bell. Stanford: Stanford
Univ. Press.

Abu-Lughod, L. 1986. Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a

Bedouin Society. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

—. 1987. Bedouin blues. Natural History, July, 24-34.

Ackerman, C. 1963. Affiliations: Structural determinants of differential

divorce rates. American Journal of Sociology 69:13-20.

Ackerman, D. 1990. The Natural History of the Senses. New York:

Random House.

Ackerman, S. 1989. European history gets even older. Science 246:28-

29.

Adams, D. B., A. R. Gold, and A. D. Burt. 1978. Rise in female-initiated

sexual activity at ovulation and its suppression by oral contraceptives.
New England Journal of Medicine 299:1145-50.

Adams, V. 1980. Getting at the heart of jealous love. Psychology

Today, May,

38-48.

Alcock, J. 1987. Ardent adaptationism. Atom/Msfo/y, April, 4.

Alexander, R. D. 1974. The evolution of social behavior. Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics 5:325-83.

—. 1987. The Biology of Moral Systems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

—. 1990. How Did Humans Evolve? Museum of Zoology, University of

Michigan, Special Publication no. 1.

Alexander, R. D., and K. M. Noonan. 1979. Concealment of ovulation,

parental care and human social evolution. In Evolutionary Biology and
Human Social Behavior, ed. N. A. Chagnon and W. Irons. North
Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press.

Alford, R. R., and R. Friedland. 1985. Powers of Theory: Capitalism,

the State, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Allen, L. L., P. S. Bridges, D. L. Evon, K. R. Rosenberg, M. D. Russell,

L. A. Schepartz, V. J. Vitzthum, and M. H. Wolpoff. 1982. Demography
and human origins. American Anthropologist 84:888-96.

Allen, M. 1981. Individual copulatory preference and the "Strange

female effect" in a captive group-living male chimpanzee (Pan
troglodytes). Primates 22:221-36.

Altschuler, M. 1971. Cayapa personality and sexual motivation. In

Human Sexual Behavior, ed. D. S. Marshall and R. C. Suggs.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Ambrose, S. H. 1986. Comment on: H. T. Bunn and E. M. Kroll,

Systematic butchery by Plio/Pleistocene hominids at Olduvai Gorge,
Tanzania. Current Anthropology 27431-53.
Andrews, P. 1981. Species diversity and diet in monkeys and apes
during the Miocene. In Aspects of Human Evolution, ed. C. B.
Stringer. London: Taylor & Francis.

Andrews, P. and J. E. Cronin. 1982. The relationships of Sivapithecus

and Ramapithecus and the evolution of the orang-utan. Nature
297:541-46.

Andrews, P. and J. A. H. Van Couvering. 1975. Palaeoenvironments in

the East African Miocene. In Approaches to Primate Paleobiology, ed.
F. S. Szalay. Basel: S. Karger.

Angier, N. 1990. Mating for life? It's not for the birds or the bees. New
York Times, Aug. 21.

—. 1991. A potent peptide promotes an urge to cuddle. New York

Times, Jan.

22.

Arensburg, B., A. M. Tillier, B. Vandermeersch, A. Duday, L. A.

Schepartz, and Y. Rak. 1989. A middle paleolithic human hyoid bone.
Nature 338:758-60.

Atwater, L. 1987. College students extramarital involvement. Sexuality

Today, Nov. 30, p. 2.

Avery, C. S. 1989. How do you build intimacy in an age of divorce?

Psychology Today, May, 27-31.

Axelrod, D. I., and P. H. Raven. 1977. Late Cretaceous and tertiary

vegetation history in Africa. In Biogeography and Ecology of Southern
Africa, ed. M. J. A. Werger. The Hague: Junk.

Badrian, N. and R. K. Malenky. 1984. Feeding ecology of Pan paniscus

in the Lomako Forest, Zaire. In The Pygmy Chimpanzee, ed. R. L.
Susman. New York: Plenum Press.
Badrian, A., and N. Badrian. 1984. Social organization of Pan paniscus
in the Lomako Forest, Zaire. In The Pygmy Chimpanzee, ed. R. L.
Susman. New York: Plenum Press.

Balsdon, J. P. V. D. 1973. Roman women: Their history and habits. In

Women: From the Greeks to the French Revolution, ed. S. G. Bell.
Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.

Barash, D. P. 1977. Sociology and Behavior. New York: Elsevier.

Bardis, P. 1963. Main features of the ancient Roman family. Social

Science 38 (Oct.): 225-40.

Barnes, J. 1967. The frequency of divorce. In The Craft of Social

Anthropology, ed. A. L. Epstein. London: Tavistock.

Barrett, N. 1987. Women and the economy. In The American Woman,

io8y-88, ed. Sara E. Rix. New York: W. W. Norton.

Barringer, F. 1989a. U.S. birth level nears 4 million mark. New York
Times, Oct. 31.

—. 1989b. Divorce data stir doubt on trial marriage. New York Times,
June 9.

—. 1991. Changes in U.S. households: Single parents amid solitude.

New York Times, June 7.

Bateman, A. J. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in drosophila. Heredity

2:349-68.

Beals, R. L. 1946. Cherdn: A Sierra Tarascan village. Smithsonian

Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology, Publication no. 2.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Beardsley, R. K., J. W. Hall, and R. E. Ward. 1959. Village Japan.

Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Behrensmeyer, K. 1984. Taphonomy and the fossil record. American

Scientist 72:558-66.

Behrensmeyer, K., and A. P. Hill. 1980. Fossils in the Making.

Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Belkin, L. 1989. Bars to equality of sexes seen as eroding, slowly. New

York Times Aug. 20.

Bell, A. P., and S. Weinberg. 1978. Homosexualities: A Study of

Diversity among Men and Women. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Bell, D. 1980. Desert politics: Choices in the "marriage market." In

Women and Colonization, ed. Mona Etienne and Eleanor Leacock.
New York: Prae-ger.

Bell, S. G., ed. 1973. Women: From the Greeks to the French
Revolution. Stanford: Stanford Univ. press.

Benbow, C. P., and J. C. Stanley. 1980. Sex differences in

mathematical ability: Fact or artifact. Science 210:1234-36.

—. 1983. Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts.

Science 222:1029-31.

Benderly, B. L. 1987. TTie Myth of Two Minds: What Gender Means

and Doesn 't Mean. New York: Doubleday.

—. 1989. Don't believe everything you read: A case study of how the
politics of sex differences research turned a small finding into a major
media flap. Psychology Today, Nov. 63-66.

Benshoof, L., and R. Thornhill. 1979. The evolution of monogamy and

concealed ovulation in humans. Journal of Social and Biological
Structures 2:95-106.

Berger,}. 1986. Wild Horses of the Great Basin: Social Competition

and Population Size. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.

Berggren, W. A., and C. D. Hollister. 1977. Plate tectonics and

paleocircula-tion—Commotion in the ocean. Tectonophysics 38:11-48.

Bernard, J. 1964. The adjustment of married mates. In Handbook of

Marriage and the Family, ed. H. I. Christensen. Chicago: Rand
McNally.

Berndt, C. H. 1981. Interpretations and "facts" in aboriginal Australia.

In Woman the Gatherer, ed. F. Dahlberg. New Haven: Yale Univ.
Press.

Bernor, R. L. 1985. Neogene palaeoclimatic events and continental

mammalian response: Is there global synchroneity? South African
Journal of Science 81:261.

Berremann, G. 1962. Pahari polyandry: A comparison. American

Anthropologist 64:60-75.

Bertram, B. C. R. 1975. Social factors influencing reproduction in wild

lions. Journal of Zoology 177:463-82.

Betzig, L. L. 1982. Despotism and differential reproduction: A cross-

cultural correlation of conflict asymmetry, hierarchy and degree of
polygyny. Ethology and Sociobiology 3: 209-21.

—. 1986. Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View

of History. Hawthorne, N.Y.: Aldine.

—. 1989. Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study.

Current Anthropology 30:654-76.

Betzig, L., A. Harrigan, and P. Turke. 1989. Childcare on Ifaluk.

Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie 114:161-77.

Bieber, I., H. J. Dain, P. R. Dince, M. G. Drellich, H. G. Grand, R. H.

Gundlach, M. W. Kremer, A. H. Rifkin, C. B. Wilbur, and T. B. Bieber.
1962. Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals.
New York: Basic Books.

Binford, L. R. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New

York: Academic Press.

—. 1985. Human ancestors: Changing views of their behavior. Journal

of Anthropological Archaeology 4:292-327.

—. 1987. The hunting hypothesis: Archaeological methods and the

past. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 30:1-9.

Birdsell, J. B. 1968. Some predictions for the Pleistocene based on

equilibrium systems among recent hunter-gatherers. In Man the
Hunter, ed. R. B. Lee and I. DeVore. New York: Aldine.

—. 1979. Ecological influences on Australian aborginal social

organization. In Primate Ecology and Human Origins, ed. I. S.
Bernstein and E. O. Smith. New York: Garland STPM Press.

Bischof, N. 1975a. A systems approach toward the functional

connections of attachment and fear. Child Development 46:801-17.

—. 1975b. Comparative ethology of incest avoidance. In Biosocial

Anthropology, ed. R. Fox. London: Malaby Press.

Blake, J. 1989a. Family Size and Achievement. Berkeley: Univ.

California Press.

—. 1989b. Number of siblings and educational attainment. Science

245:32-

36.

Blumenschine, R. J. 1986. Early Hominid Scavenging Opportunities:

Implications for Carcass Availability in the Serengeti and Ngorongoro
Ecosystems. British Archaeological Reports International Series, no.
283. Oxford: BAR.

—. 1987. Characteristics of an early hominid scavenging niche. Current

Anthropology 28:383-407.

—. 1989. A landscape taphonomic model of the scale of prehistoric

scavenging opportunities. Journal of Human Evolution 18:345-71.

Blumler, M. A., and R. Byrne. 1991. The ecological genetics of

domestication and the origins of agriculture. Current Anthropology
32:23-54.

Blumstein, P., and P. Schwartz. 1983. American Couples: Money,

Work, Sex. New York: William Morrow.

Blurton-Jones, N. G. 1984. A selfish origin for human sharing:

Tolerated theft. Ethology and Sociobiology 5:1-3.

Boesch, C, and A. Boesch. 1984. Mental map in wild chimpanzees: An

analysis of hammer transports for nut cracking. Primates 25:160-70.

Bohannan, P. 1985. All the Happy Families: Exploring the Varieties of

Family Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bonnefille, R. 1985. Evolution of the continental vegetation: The

palaeobotani-cal record from East Africa. South African Journal of
Science 81:267-70.

Borgerhoff Mulder, M. 1990. Kipsigis women's preferences for wealthy

men: Evidence for female choice in mammals? Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology

27:255-64.

Botwin, C. 1988. Men Who Can't Be Faithful. New York: Warner

Books.

Bower, B. 1984. Fossil find may be earliest known hominid. Science

News 125:230.

—. 1985. A mosaic ape takes shape. Science News 127:26-27.

1986. The math gap: Puzzling sex differences. Science News 130:357.

1988a. Ancient human ancestors got all fired up. Science News
134:372.

1988b. Retooled ancestors. Science News 133:344-45.

1989. Conflict enters early European farm life. Science News 136:165.

1990. Average attractions: Psychologists break down the essence of

physical beauty. Science News 137:298-99.

—. 1991. Darwin's minds. Science News 140:232-34.

Bowlby, J. 1969. Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1, Attachment. New York:

Basic Books.

Brain, C. K. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to

African Cave Taphonomy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Brain, C. K., and A. Sillen. 1988. Evidence from the Swartkrans cave
for the earliest use of fire. Nature, 336:464-66.

Brandwein, N., J. MacNeice, and P. Spiers. 1982. The Group House

Handbook: How to Live with Others (and love it). Reston, Va.:
Acropolis Books.

Bray, O. E, J. J. Kennelly, and J. L. Guarino. 1975. Fertility of eggs

produced on territories of vasectomized red-winged blackbirds.
Wilson Bulletin 87:187-95-

Briggs, J. L. 1970. Never in Anger: Portrait of an Eskimo Family.

Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

Brink, A. S. 1957. The spontaneous fire-controlling reactions of two

chimpanzee smoking addicts. South African Journal of Science
53:241-47.

Brod, H. 1987. Who benefits from male involvement in wife's

pregnancy? Marriage and Divorce Today 12 (no. 46): 3.

Bromage, T. G. 1987. The biological and chronological maturation of

early hominids. Journal of Human Evolution 16:257-72.

Brown, E. 1987. The hidden meaning: An analysis of different types of

affairs. Marriage and Divorce Today 12 (no. 44): 1.

Brown, F., et al. 1985. Early Homo erectus skeleton from West Lake
Turkana, Kenya. Nature 316:788-92.

Brown, P. 1988. The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual
Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Bullough, V. L. 1976. Sexual Variance in Society and History. Chicago:

Univ. of Chicago Press.

Bullough, V. L., and B. Bullough. 1987. Women and Prostituition: A

Social History. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

Bunn, H. T., and E. M. Kroll. 1986. Systematic butchery by

Plio/Pleistocene hominids at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Current
Anthropology 27:431-53.

Burch, E. S., Jr., and T. C. Correll. 1972. Alliance and conflict:

Interregional relations in north Alaska. In Alliance in Eskimo Society,
ed. L. Guemple. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press.

Burgess, E. W., and L. S. Cottrell. 1939. Predicting Success and Failure

in Marriage. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Burleson, M. H., and W. R. Trevathan. 1990. Non-ovulatory sexual

activity: Possible physiological effects on women's lifetime
reproductive success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Los Angeles.

Burley, N. 1979. The evolution of concealed ovulation. American

Naturalist 114:835-58.

Burns, G. 1990. In Newsweek Special Edition, winter/spring, 10.

Burton, F. D. 1971. Sexual climax in female Macaca mulatta. In

Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Primatology,
Zurich 1970, 3:180-91. Basel: Karger.

Buss, D. M. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences:

Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences 12:1-49.

Bygott, J. D. 1974. Agonistic behavior and dominance in wild

chimpanzees. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Cambridge.

—. 1979. Agonistic behavior, dominance and social structure in wild

chimpanzees of the Gombe National Park. In The Great Apes, ed. D. A.
Hamburg and E. R. McCown. Menlo Park, Calif.:
Benjamin/Cummings.

Byrne, G. 1989. Overhaul urged for math teaching. Science 243:597.

Campbell, B., ed. 1972. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871-
10.71. Chicago: Aldine.

Cant, J. G. H. 1981. Hypothesis for the evolution of human breasts and

buttocks. American Naturalist 117:199-204.

Capellanus, A. 1959. The Art of Courtly Love. Trans. J. Parry. New

York: Ungar.

Carcopino, J. 1973. The emancipation of the Roman matron. In

Women: From the Greeks to the French Revolution, ed. S. G. Bell.
Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.

Carneiro, R. L. 1958. Extra-marital sex freedom among the Kuikuru

Indians of Mato Grosso. Revista do Museu Paulista (Sao Paulo)
10:135-42.

—. 1981. The chiefdom: Precursor of the state. In The Transition to

Statehood in the New World, ed. G. D. Jones and R. R. Kautz. New
York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

—. 1987. Cross-currents in the theory of state formation. American

Ethnologist 14:756-70.

—. 1991. The nature of the chiefdom as revealed by evidence from the

Cauca valley of Colombia. In Profiles in Cultural Evolution, ed. A. T.
Rambo and K. Gillogly. Anthropology Papers, Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, no. 85:167-90.

Cavallo, J. A. 1990. Cat in the human cradle. Natural History, Feb., 53-
60.

Cavallo J. A., and R. Blumenschine. 1989. Tree stored leopard kills:

Expanding the hominid scavenging niche. Journal of Human
Evolution 18:393-99.

Cetron, M., and O. Davies. 1989. American Renaissance: Our Life at

the Turn of the 21st Century. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Chagnon, N. 1982. Sociodemographic attributes of nepotism in tribal

populations: Man the rule breaker. In Current Problems in
Sociobiology, ed. B. Bertram. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Chance, M. R. A. 1962. Social behavior and primate evolution. In

Culture and the Evolution of Man, ed. M. F. A. Montagu. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press.

Chance, N. A. 1966. The Eskimo of North Alaska. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Chase, P. C, and H. L. Dibble. 1987. Middle Paleolithic symbolism: A

review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 6:263-96.

Cherlin, A. J. 1978. Women's changing roles at home and on the job.

Proceedings of a conference on the national longitudinal surveys of
mature women in cooperation with the employment and training
administration. Department of Labor Special Report, no. 26.

—. 1981. Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.

Press.

—. 1987. Women and the family. In The American Woman, 1987-88,

ed. S. E. Rix. New York: W. W. Norton.

Chesters, K. I. M. 1957. The Miocene flora of Rusinga Island, Lake

Victoria, Kenya. Palaeontographica 1016:30-67.

Chin, P. 1978. The Family. Trans. S. Shapiro. Peking: Foreign

Languages Press.

Chivers, D. J. 1978. Sexual behavior of the wild siamang. In Recent

Advances in Primatology. Vol. 1, Behavior, ed. D. J. Chivers and J.
Herbert. New York: Academic Press.

Chute, M. 1949. Shakespeare of London. New York: E. P. Dutton.

Ciochon, R. L., and J. G. Fleagle. 1987. Part V: Ramapithecus and

human origins. In Primate Evolution and Human Origins, ed. R. L.
Ciochon and J. G. Fleagle. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Clark, G. 1980. Mesolithic Prelude. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ.

Press.

Cohen, M. N. 1977. The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and

the Origins of Agriculture. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

—. 1980. Speculations on the evolution of density measurement and

population regulation in Homo sapiens. In Biosocial Mechanisms of
Population Regulation, ed. M. N. Cohen, R. S. Malpass, and H. G.
Klein. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

—. 1989. Health and the Rise of Civilization. New Haven: Yale Univ.
Press.

Cohen, R. 1971. Dominance and Defiance: A Study of Marital

Instability in an Islamic African Society. Washington, D.C: American
Anthropological Association.
Cohen, Y. A. 1964. The Transition from Childhood to Adolescence:
Cross-Cultural Studies of Initiation Ceremonies, Legal Systems, and
Incest Taboos. Chicago: Aldine.

Collier, J. F. 1988. Marriage and Inequality in Classless Societies.

Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.

Conkey, M. W. 1983. On the origins of Paleolithic art: A review and

some critical thoughts. In The Mousterian Legacy, ed. E. Trinkaus.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

—. 1984. To find ourselves. Art and social geography of prehistoric

hunter gatherers. In Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Societies,
ed. C. Schrire. New York: Academic Press.

Conoway, C. H., and C. B. Koford. 1964. Estrous cycles and mating

behavior in a free-ranging band of rhesus monkeys. Journal of
Mammalogy. 45:577-88.

Conroy, G. E., M. W. Vannier, and P. V. Tobias. 1990. Endocranial

features of Australopithecus africanus revealed by 2 and 3-D
computed tomography. Science 247:838-41.

Constantine, L. L., and J. N. Constantine. 1973. Group Marriage: A

Study of Contemporary Multilateral Marriage. New York: Macmillan.

Coolidge, H. J. 1933. Pan paniscus, pygmy chimpanzee from south of

the Congo River. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 18:1-59.

Corruccini, R. S., R. L. Ciochon, and H. M. McHenry. 1976. The

postcranium of Miocene hominoids: Were Dryopithecines merely
"dental apes"? Primates

17:205-23.

Corruccini, R. S., and H. M. McHenry. 1979. Morphological affinities

of Pan paniscus. Science 204:1341-42.

Cowan, A. L. 1989. Women's gains on the job: Not without a heavy toll.
New York Times, Aug. 2.

Cronin, J. E. 1983. Apes, humans and molecular clocks: A reappraisal.

In New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, ed. R. L. Ciochon
and R. S. Corruccini. New York: Plenum Press.

Crook, J. H., and S. J. Crook. 1988. Tibetan polyandry: Problems of

adaptation and fitness. In Human Reproductive Behaviour, ed. L.
Betzig, M. B. Mulder, and P. Turke. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press.

Cutler, W. B., G. Preti, A. Krieger, G. R. Huggins, C. R. Garcia, and H.

J. Lawley. 1986. Human axillary secretions influence women's
menstrual cycles: The role of donor extract from men. Hormones and
Behavior 20:463-73.

Dahlberg, F., ed. 1981. Woman the Gatherer. New Haven: Yale Univ.
Press.

Daly, M. 1978. The cost of mating. American Naturalist 112:771-74.

Daly, M., and M. Wilson, 1978. Sex, Evolution, and Behavior:

Adaptations for Reproduction. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press.

—. 1983. Sex, Evolution, and Behavior. Boston: Willard Grant Press;

—. 1988. Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Damon, W. 1988. The Moral Child: Nurturing Children's Natural

Moral Growth. New York: Free Press.

Daniels, D. 1983. The evolution of concealed ovulation and self-

deception. Ethology and Sociobiology 4:69-87.

Darwin, C. 1859. The Origin of Species. New York: Modern Library.

—. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. New

York: Modern Library.
—. [1872] 1965. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Davis, D. E. 1964. The physiological analysis of aggressive behavior. In

Social Behavior and Organization among Vertebrates, ed. W. Etkin.
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Davis, E. 1971. The First Sex. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin

Books.

Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Degler, C. N. 1991. In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and

Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press.

de Lacoste-Utamsing, C, and R. L. Holloway. 1982. Sexual

dimorphism in the human corpus callosum. Science 216:1431-32.

Delson, E., ed. 1985. Ancestors: The Hard Evidence. New York: Alan
R. Liss.

De Rougemont, D. 1983. Love in the Western World. New York:

Schocken Books.

De Vos, G. J. 1983. Social behavior of black grouse: An observational

and experimental field study. Ardea 71:1-103.

De Waal, F. 1982. Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes.

New York: Harper & Row.

—. 1987. Tension regulation and nonreproductive functions of sex in

captive bonobos (Pan paniscus). National Geographic Research 3:318-
35.

—. 1989. Peacemaking among Primates. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.

Press.

Diamond, M. 1980. The biosocial evolution of human sexuality. Reply

to Precis of The evolution of human sexuality, by Donald Symons.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:171-214.

Diana, L. n.d. Extra-marital sex in Italy: A family responsibility. Social

Science Program, Virginia Commonwealth Univ.

Dickemann, M. 1979. The ecology of mating systems in hypergynous

dowry societies. Social Science Information 18:163-95.

Dionne, E. J. 1989. Struggle for work and family fueling women's

movement. New York Times, Aug. 22.

Dissanayake, E. 1988. What is Art For? Seattle: Univ. of Washington

Press.

Donaldson, F. 1971. Emotion as an accessory vital system. Perspectives

in Biology and Medicine 15 46-71.

Dougherty, E. G. 1955. Comparative evolution and the origin of

sexuality. Systematic Zoology 4:145-69.

Douglas, C. 1987. The beat goes on. Psychology Today, Nov., 37-42.

Draper, P. 1985. Two views of sex differences in socialization. In Male-

Female Differences: A Bio-Cultural Perspective, ed. R. L. Hall, P.
Draper, M. E. Hamilton, D. McGuinness, C. M. Otten, and E. A. Roth.
New York: Praeger.

Dupaquier, J., E. Helin, P. Laslett, M. Livi-Bacci and S. Sogner. 1981.

Marriage and Remarriage in Populations of the Past. New York:
Academic Press.

Durden-Smith, J., and D. Desimone. 1983. Sex and the Brain. New
York: Arbor House.

Dychtwald, K., and J. Flower. 1989. Age Wave: The Challenges and
Opportunities of an Aging America. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher.

East, R. 1939. Akiga's Story: The Tiv Tribe as Seen by One of Its
Members. London: Oxford Univ. Press.

Easterlin, R. A. 1980. Birth and Fortune: The Impact of Numbers on

Personal Welfare. New York: Basic Books.

Eberhard, W. G. 1985. Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia.

Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

—. 1987. Runaway sexual selection. Natural History, Dec, 4-8.

—. 1990. Animal genitalia and female choice. American Scientist

87:134-41.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1970. Ethology: The Biology of Behavior. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

—. 1989. Human Ethology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Ekman, P. 1980. The Face of Man. New York: Garland STPM Press.

—. 1985. Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and

Marriage. New York: W. W. Norton.

Ekman, P. E., R. Sorenson, and W. V. Friesen. 1969. Pan-cultural

elements in facial displays of emotion. Science 164:86-88.

Elkin, A. P. 1939. Introduction to Aboriginal Woman: Sacred and

Profane, by P. M. Kaberry. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Ellis, B., and D. Symons. 1990. Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An

evolutionary psychological approach. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Los Angeles.

Ember, M., and C. R. Ember. 1979. Male-female bonding: A cross-

species study of mammals and birds. Behavior Science Research
14:37-56.

Emlen, S. T., and L. W. Oring. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection and the
evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215-23.
Engels, F. [1884] 1954. Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the
State. Trans. Ernest Untermann. Moscow: Foreign Languages
Publishing House.

Epstein, C. 1988. Deceptive Distinctions: Sex, Gender and the Social

Order. New York: Russell Sage.

Espenshade, T. J. 1985. Marriage trends in America: Estimates,

implications, and underlying causes. Population and Development
Review 11 (no. 2): 193-245-

Etienne, M., and E. Leacock, eds. 1980. Women and Colonization:

Anthropological Perspectives. New York: Praeger.

Evans, M. S. 1987. Women in twentieth century America: An overview.

In The American Woman: 1987-88 ed. S. E. Rix. New York: W. W.
Norton.

Eveleth, P. B. 1986. Timing of menarche: Secular trend and population

differences. In School-Age Pregnancy and Parenthood: Biosocial
Dimensions, ed. J. B. Lancaster and B. A. Hamburg. New York: Aldine
de Gruyter.

Farah, M. 1984. Marriage and Sexuality in Islam: A Translation of al-

Ghazalt % Book on the Etiquette of Marriage from the Ihya. Salt Lake
City: Univ. of Utah Press.

Fedigan, L. M. 1982. Primate Paradigms: Sex Roles and Social Bonds.

Montreal: Eden Press.

Fehrenbacker, G. 1988. Moose courts cows, and disaster. Standard-

Times (New Bedford, Mass.), Jan. 23.

Feinman, S., and G. W. Gill. 1978. Sex differences in physical

attractiveness preferences. Journal of Social Psychology 105 43-5 2.

Feld, A., ed. 1990. How to stay married in the 90s. Bride's magazine,
Dec, 126.
Fennema, E. 1990. Justice, equity and mathematics education. In
Mathematics and Gender, ed. E. Fennema and G. C. Leder. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Fennema, E. and G. C. Leder, eds. 1990. Mathematics and Gender.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Field, T. M., et al. 1982. Discrimination and imitation of facial

expressions by neonates. Science 218:179-81.

Finn, M. V., and B. S. Low. 1986. Resource distribution, social

competition and mating patterns in human societies. In Ecological
Aspects of Social Evolution, ed. D. I. Rubenstein and R. W.
Wrangham. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

Fisher, H. E. 1975. The loss of estrous periodicity in hominid

evolution. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.

—. 1982. The Sex Contract: The Evolution of Human Behavior. New

York: William Morrow.

—. 1987. The four-year itch. Natural History, Oct., 22-33.

—. 1989. Evolution of human serial pairbonding. American Journal of

Physical Anthropology 78:331-54.

—. 1991. Monogamy, adultery and divorce in cross-species perspective.

In Man and Beast Revisited, ed. M. H. Robinson and L. Tiger.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

—. In preparation. Human divorce patterns: An update.

Fishman, S. M., and D. V. Sheehan. 1985. Anxiety and panic: Their

cause and treatment. Psychology Today, April, 26-32.

Flinn, M. V., and B. S. Low. 1986. Resource distribution, social

competition and mating patterns in human societies. In Ecological
Aspects of Social Evolution, ed. D. I. Rubenstein and R. W.
Wrangham. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Fluehr-Lobban, C. 1979. A Marxist reappraisal of the matriarchate.
Current Anthropology 20:341-60.

Foley, R. A., and P. C. Lee. 1989. Finite social space, evolutionary

pathways, and reconstructing hominid behavior. Science 243:901-06.

Ford, C. S., and F. A. Beach. 1951. Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New

York: Harper & Brothers.

Forsyth, A. 1985. Good scents and bad. Natural History, Nov., 25-32.

Fortune, R. 1963. Sorcerers of Dobu. New York: E. P. Dutton.

Fossey, D. 1979. Development of the mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla

herin-gei): The first thirty-six months. In The Great Apes, ed. D. A.
Hamburg and E. R. McCown. Menlo Park, Calif.:
Benjamin/Cummings.

—. 1983. Gorillas in the Mist. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Foucault, M. 1985. The History of Sexuality. Vol 2, The Use of

Pleasure. Trans. R. Hurley. New York: Pantheon Books.

Fouts, D. 1983. Louis tries his hand at surgery. Friends of Washoe 3,

no. 4.

Fox, R. 1972. Alliance and constraint: Sexual selection in the evolution

of human kinship systems. In Sexual Selection and the Descent of
Man, ed. B. Campbell. Chicago: Aldine.

—. 1980. The Red Lamp of Incest. New York: E. P. Dutton.

Frank, R. 1985. Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the
Quest for Status. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Frayer, D. W., and M. H. Wolpoff. 1985. Sexual Dimorphism. Annual

Review of Anthropology. 14:429-73.
Frayser, S. 1985. Varieties of Sexual Experience: An Anthropological
Perspective on Human Sexuality. New Haven: HRAF Press.

Frazer, J. G. [1922] 1963. The Golden Bough. New York: Macmillan.

Freud, S. 1918. Totem and Taboo. Trans. A. A. Brill. New York: Moffat,
Yard.

Friedl, E. 1975. Women and Men: An Anthropologist's View. New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Frisch, R. E. 1978. Population, food intake and fertility. Science

199:22-30.

—. 1989. Body weight and reproduction. Science 246:432.

Frisch, R. E., and R. Revelle. 1970. Height and weight at menarche and
a hypothesis of critical weights and adolescent events. Science
169:397-99.

Fuller, C. J. 1976. The Nayars Today. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.

Press.

Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. 1981. Remarriage and intergenerational

relations. In Aging: Stability and Changes in the Family, ed. R. W.
Fogel et al. New York: Academic Press.

Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., and G. B. Spanier. 1984. Recycling the Family:

Remarriage after Divorce. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Gage, R. L. 1979. Fox Family. New York: Weatherhill/Heibonsha.

Galdikas, B. M. F. 1979. Orangutan adaptation at Tanjung Puting

Reserve: Mating and ecology. In The Great Apes, ed. D. A. Hamburg
and E. R. McCown. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.

Galdikas, B. M. F., and J. W. Wood. 1990. Birth spacing patterns in

humans and apes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 83:185-
91.
Gallup, G. G. 1982. Permanent breast enlargement in human females:
A socio-biological analysis. Journal of Human Evolution 11:597-601.

Gargett, R. H. 1989. Grave shortcomings: The evidence for

Neanderthal burial. Current Anthropology 30:157-90.

Gaulin, S. J., and J. Boster. 1985. Cross-cultural differences in sexual

dimorphism: Is there any variance to be explained? Ethology and
Sociobiology 6:219-25-

Gaulin, S. J., and R. W. FitzGerald. 1989. Sexual selection for spatial-

learning ability. Animal Behavior. 37:322-31.

Gaulin, S. J., and M. J. Konner. 1977. O n the natural diet of primates,

including humans. In Nutrition and the Brain. Vol. 1, ed. R. and J.
Wurtman. New York: Raven Press.

Gehlback, F. R. 1986. Odd couples of suburbia. Natural History, July,

56-66.

Geschwind, N. 1974. The anatomical basis of hemispheric

differentiation. In Hemispheric Function of the Human Brain, ed. S. J.
Dimond and J. G. Beaumont. New York: John Wiley.

Gibbons, A. 1990a. Our chimp cousins get that much closer. Science
250:376.

—. 1990b. Paleontology by bulldozer. Science 247:1407-9.

—. 1991. First hominid finds from Ethiopia in a decade. Science

251:1428.

Gibbs, H. L., et al. 1990. Realized reproductive success of polygynous

red-winged blackbirds revealed by DNA markers. Science 250.1394-
97.

Gibson, K. R. 1981. Comparative neuroontogeny, its implications for

the development of human intelligence. In Infancy and Epistemology,
ed. G. Butter-worth. Brighton, England: Harvester Press.
Gies, F. and J. Gies. 1978. Women in the Middle Ages. New York:
Barnes & Noble Books.

Giese, J. 1990. A communal type of life, and dinner's for everyone.

New York Times, Sept. 27.

Gilligan C. 1982a. In a Different Voice. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.

Press.

—. 1982b. Why should a woman be more like a man? Psychology

Today, June,

70-71.

Gilligan, C, and G. Wiggins. 1988. The origins of morality in early

childhood relationships. In Mapping the Moral Domain, ed. C. Gilligan
et al. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

Gimbutas, M. A. 1989. The Language of the Goddess. San Francisco:

Harper & Row.

Givens, D. B. 1983. Love Signals: How to Attract a Mate. New York:

Crown.

—. 1986. The big and the small: Toward a paleontology of gesture. Sign
Language Studies 51: 145-70.

Gladkih, M. I., N. L. Kornieta, and O. Soffer. 1984. Mammoth-bone

dwellings on the Russian plain. Scientific American 251 (no. 5): 164-
75.

Glenn, N., and M. Supancic. 1984. The social and demographic

correlates of divorce and separation in the United States: An update
and reconsideration. Journal of Marriage and the Family 46:563-75.

Glick, P. C. 1975. Some recent changes in American families. Current

Population Reports. Social Studies Series P-23, no. 52. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Goldberg, S. 1973. The Inevitability of Patriarchy. New York: William
Morrow.

Goldin, C. 1990. Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic

History of American Women. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

—. 1991. A conversation with Claudia Goldin. Harvard Gazette, Feb.

i,pp.

5-6.

Goldizen, A. W. 1987. Tamarins and marmosets: Communal care of

offspring. In Primate Societies, ed. B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheney, R. M.
Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham, and T. T. Struhsaker. Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press.

Goldstein, B. 1976. Human Sexuality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Goldstein, M. 1976. Fraternal polyandry and fertility in a high

Himalayan village in N. W. Nepal. Human Ecology 4 (no. 3): 223-33.

Goldstein, M. C. 1987. When brothers share a wife. Natural History,

March, 39-49

Goleman, D. 1981. The 7,000 faces of Dr. Ekman. Psychology Today,

Feb., 43-49

—. 1986. Two views of marriage explored: His and hers. New York
Times, April 1.

—. 1989. Subtle but intriguing differences found in the brain anatomy

of men and women. New York Times, April 11.

Goodale, J. C. 1971. Tiwi Wives: A Study of the Women of Melville

Island, North Australia. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press.

Goodall, J. 1968. The behavior of free-ranging chimpanzees in the

Gombe Stream Reserve. Animal Behavior Monographs 1:161-311.
—. 1970. Tool-using in primates and other vertebrates. Advanced
Studies of Behavior 3:195-249.

—. 1977. Watching, Watching, Watching. New York Times, Sept. 15.

—. 1986. The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior.

Cambridge: Belknap Press/Harvard Univ. Press.

—. 1988. In the Shadow of Man. Rev. ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Goodall, J., A. Bandora, E. Bergmann, C. Busse, H. Matama, E.

Mpongo, A. Pierce, and D. Riss. 1979. Intercommunity interactions in
the chimpanzee population of the Gombe National Park. In The Great
Apes, ed. D. A. Hamburg and E. R. McCown. Menlo Park, Calif.:
Benjamin/Cummings.

Goodenough, W. H. 1970. Description and Comparison in Cultural

Anthropology. Chicago: Aldine.

Goody, J. 1969. Inheritance, property, and marriage in Africa and

Eurasia. Sociology 3:55-76.

—. 1983. The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe.

Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Gorer, G. 1938. Himalayan Village: An Account of the Lepchas of

Sikkim. London: M. Joseph.

Gough, E. K. 1968. The Nayars and the definition of marriage. In

Marriage, Family, and Residence, ed. P. Bohannan and J. Middleton.
Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press.

Gould, J. L. 1982. Ethology: The Mechanisms and Evolution of

Behavior. New York: W. W. Norton.

Gould, J. L., and C. G. Gould. 1989. The Ecology of Attraction: Sexual

Selection. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.

Press.

—. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. W. Norton.

—. 1987a. Freudian slip. Natural History, Feb., 14-19.

—. 1987b. Steven Jay Gould Replies to John Alcock's "Ardent

Adaptation-ism." Natural History, April, 4.

Gove, C. M. 1989. Wife lending: Sexual pathways to transcendence in

Eskimo culture. In Enlightened Sexuality, ed. G. Feuerstein. Freedom,
Calif.: Crossing Press.

Graham, C. A., and W. C. McGrew. 1980. Menstrual synchrony in

female undergraduates living on a coeducational campus.
Psychoneuroendocrinology 5:245-52.

Gray, J. P., and L. D. Wolfe. 1983. Human female sexual cycles and the
concealment of ovulation problem. Journal of Social and Biological
Structures 6:345-52.

Greenfield, L. O. 1980. A late-divergence hypothesis. American

Journal of Physical Anthropology 52:351 -66.

—. 1983. Toward the resolution of discrepancies between phenetic and

paleon-tological data bearing on the question of human origins. In
New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, ed. R. L. Ciochon
and R. S. Corruccini. New York: Plenum Press.

Gregersen, E. 1982. Sexual Practices: The Story of Human Sexuality.

London: Mitchell Beazley.

Gregg, S. A. 1988. Foragers and Farmers: Population Interaction and

Agricultural Expansion in Prehistoric Europe. Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press.

Gregor, T. 1985. Anxious Pleasures: The Sexual Lives of an Amazonian

People. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Grine, F. E. 1989. Evolutionary History of the Robust
Australopithecines. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Griffin, D. R. 1984. Animal Thinking. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.

Press.

Gubernick, D. J. Department of Psychology, Univ. of Wisconsin,

Madison. Personal communication.

Guttentag, M., and P. F. Secord. 1983. Too Many Women? The Sex
Ratio Question. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Hall, E. T. 1959. The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday.

—. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor Books.

—. 1976. Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Press.

Hall, J. 1984. Nonverbal Sex Differences. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

Press.

Hall, J. A., R. Rosenthal, D. Archer, M. R. DiMatteo, and P. L. Rogers.

1977. The profile of nonverbal sensitivity. In Advances in Psychological
Assessment. Vol. 4, ed. P. McReynolds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

—. 1978. Decoding wordless messages. Human Nature, May, 68-75.

Hall, R. L. 1982. Sexual Dimorphism in Homo Sapiens: A Question of

Size. New York: Preager.

Hall, T. 1987. Infidelity and women: Shifting patterns. New York

Times, June 1.

Hames, R. B. 1988. The allocation of parental care among the

Ye'kwana. In Human Reproductive Behavior: A Darwinian
Perspective, ed. L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, and P. Turke. New
York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Hamilton, W. D. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behaviour: I.

and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7:1-52.

—. 1980. Sex versus non-sex versus parasite. Oikos 35:282-90.

Hamilton, W. D., P. A. Henderson, and N. A. Moran. 1981. Fluctuation

of environment and coevolved antagonist polymorphism as factors in
the mainte-

Bibliography 383

nance of sex. In Natural Selection and Social Behavior, ed. R. D.

Alexander and D. W. Tinkle. New York: Chiron Press.

Harcourt, A. H. 1979. Social relationships between adult male and

female mountain gorillas in the wild. Animal Behavior 27:325-42.

—. 1979. The social relations and group structure of wild mountain

gorillas. In The Great Apes, ed. D. A. Hamburg and E. R. McCown.
Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.

Harris, M. 1977. Why men dominate women. New York Times

Magazine, Nov. 13,46, 115-23.

—. 1981. America Now: The Anthropology of a Changing Culture. New

York: Simon and Schuster.

Harrison, R. J. 1969. Reproduction and reproductive organs. In The

Biology of Marine Mammals, ed. H. T. Andersen. New York: Academic
Press.

Hart, C. W. M, and A. R. Pilling, i960. The Tiwi of North Australia.

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Harwood, D. M. 1985. Late Neogene climate fluctuations in the

southern high-latitudes: Implications of a warm Pliocene and
deglaciated Antarctic continent. South African Journal of Science
81:239-41.

Hassan, F. 1980. The growth and regulation of human population in

prehistoric times. In Biosocial Mechanisms of Population Regulation,
ed. M. N. Cohen, R. S. Malpass, and H. G. Klein. New Haven: Yale
Univ. Press.

Hausfater, G. and S. B. Hrdy. 1984. Infanticide: Comparative and

Evolutionary Perspectives. New York: Aldine.

Hawkes, K., K. Hill, and J. F. O'Connell. 1982. Why hunters gather:

Optimal foraging and the Ache of eastern Paraguay. American
Ethnologist 9:379-98.

Hay, R. L., and M. D. Leakey. 1982. The fossil footprints of Laetoli.

Scientific American, Feb., 50-57.

Heider, K. G. 1976. Dani sexuality: A low energy system. Man 11:188-

201.

Henley, N. 1977. Body Politics: Power, Sex and Nonverbal

Communication. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Henry, D. J. 1985. The little foxes. Natural History, Jan., 46-56.

Henry, J. 1941. Jungle People. Richmond: William Byrd.

Hess, E. H. 1975. The Tell-Tale Eye. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold.

Hewlett, B., ed. 1992. Father Child Relations. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.

Hiatt, L. R. 1989. On Cuckoldry. Journal of Social and Biological

Structures.

12:53-72.

Hite, S. 1981. The Hite Report on Male Sexuality. New York:

Ballantine Books.

Hochschild, A., with A. Machung. 1989. The Second Shift. New York:
Viking.

Holloway, R. L. 1985. The poor brain of Homo sapiens

neanderthalensis: See what you please. ... In Ancestors: The Hard
Evidence, ed. E. Delson. New York: Alan R. Liss.

Hopson, J. L. 1979. Scent Signals: The Silent Language of Sex. New

York: William Morrow.

—. 1980. Scent: Our hot-blooded sense. Science Digest Special,

Summer, 52-53, no.

Howell, J. M. 1987. Early farming in northwestern Europe. Scientific

American 257:118-24, 126.

Howell, N. 1979. Demography of the Dobe !Kung. New York: Academic

Press.

Hrdy, S. B. 1981. The Woman That Never Evolved. Cambridge:

Harvard Univ. Press.

—. 1983. Heat loss. Science 83, Aug., 73-78.

—. 1986. Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In

Feminist Approaches to Science, ed. R. Bleier. New York: Pergamon
Press.

Hunt, M. M. 1959. The Natural History of Love. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf.

—. 1974. Sexual Behavior in the 1970s. Chicago: Playboy Press.

Isaac, B. L., and W. E. Feinberg. 1982. Marital form and infant survival
among the Mende of rural upper Bambara chiefdom, Sierra Leone.
Human Biology 54:627-34.

James, S. R. 1989. Hominid use of fire in the Lower and Middle

Pleistocene: A review of the evidence. Current Anthropology 30:1-26.
Jankowiak, W. 1992. Sex, Death and Hierarchy in a Chinese City: An
Anthropological Account. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Jankowiak, W. R., and E. F. Fischer. 1992. A cross-cultural perspective

on romantic love. Ethnology 31 (no.2):i49~55.

Jarman, M. V. 1979. Impala social behavior: Territory, hierarchy,

mating and use of space. Fortschritte Verhaltensforschung 21:1-92.

Jenni, D. A. 1974. Evolution of polyandry in birds. American Zoology

14:129-44-

Jespersen, O. [1922] 1950. Language: Its Nature, Development and

Origin. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Jia, L., and H. Weiwen. 1990. The Story of Peking Man: From
Archaeology to Mystery. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Johanson, D., and M. Edey. 1981. Lucy: The Beginnings of

Humankind. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Johanson, D., and J. Shreeve. 1989. Lucy's Child: The Discovery of a

Human Ancestor. New York: William Morrow.

Johanson, D. C, and T. D. White. 1979. A systematic assessment of

early African hominids. Science 203:321-30.

Johnson, A. W., and T. Earle. 1987. The Evolution of Human Societies:

From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford: Stanford Univ.
Press.

Johnson, L. L. 1989. The Neanderthals and population as prime

mover. Current Anthropology 30:534-35.

Johnson, R. A. 1983. We: Understanding the Psychology of Romantic

Love. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Johnson, S. C. 1981. Bonobos: Generalized hominid prototypes or

specialized insular dwarfs? Current Anthropology 22:363-75.
Johnston, F. E., ed. 1982. Pliocene hominid fossils from Hadar,
Ethiopia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 57:373-19.

Jorgensen, W. 1980. Western Indians. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Jost, A. 1972. A new look at the mechanisms controlling sex

differentiation in mammals. Johns Hopkins Medical Journal 130:38-5
3.

Jungers, W. 1988. Relative joint size and hominoid locomotor

adaptations. Journal of Human Evolution 17:247.

Kaberry, P. M. 1939. Aboriginal Woman: Sacred and Profane. London:

Rout-ledge and Kegan Paul.

Kagan, J., and S. Lamb, eds. 1987. The Emergence of Morality in

Young Children. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Kagan, J., J. S. Reznick, and N. Snidman. 1988. Biological Bases of

Childhood Shyness. Science 240:167-71.

Kano, T. 1979. A pilot study on the ecology of pygmy chimpanzees, Pan

paniscus. In The Great Apes, ed. D. A. Hamburg and E. R. McCown.
Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.

—. 1980. Social behavior of wild pygmy chimpanzees (Pan paniscus) of

Wamba: A preliminary report. Journal of Human Evolution 9:243-
260.

Kano, T., and M. Mulavwa. 1984. Feeding ecology of the pygmy

chimpanzees (Pan paniscus) of Wamba. In The Pygmy Chimpanzee,
ed. R. L. Susman. New York: Plenum Press.

Kantrowitz, B., and P. Wingert. 1990. Step by step. Newsweek Special

Edition, Winter/Spring, 24-34.

Kay, R. F. 1981. The nut-crackers: A new theory of the adaptations of

the Ramapithecinae. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
55:141-51.
Kimura, D. 1983. Sex differences in cerebral organization for speech
and praxic functions. Canadian Journal of Psychology 37:19-35.

—. 1989. How sex hormones boost or cut intellectual ability.

Psychology Today, Nov., 63-66.

Kinsey, A. C, W. B. Pomeroy, and C. E. Martin. 1948. Sexual Behavior

in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

Kinsey, A. C, W. B. Pomeroy, C. E. Martin, and P. H. Gebhard. 1953.

Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

Kinzey, W. G. 1987. Monogamous primates: A primate model for

human mating systems. In The Evolution of Human Behavior, ed. W.
G. Kinzey. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.

Kirkendall, L. A., and A. E. Gravatt. 1984. Marriage and family: Styles

and forms. In Marriage and the Family in the Year 2000, ed. L. A.
Kirkendall and A. E. Gravatt. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

Kleiman, D. G. 1977. Monogamy in mammals. Quarterly Review of

Biology 52:39-69.

Kleiman, D. G., and }. F. Eisenberg. 1973. Comparisons of child and

felid social systems from an evolutionary perspective. Animal Behavior
21:637-59.

Kleiman, D. G., and J. R. Malcolm. 1981. The evolution of male

parental investment in mammals. In Parental Care in Mammals, ed.
D. J. Gubernick and P. H. Klopfer. New York: Plenum Press.

Klein, L. 1980. Contending with colonization: Tlingit men and women

in change. In Woman and Colonization, ed. M. Etienne and E.
Leacock. New York: Praeger.

Bibliography 387

Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental

approach to socialization. In Handbook of Socialization Theory and
Research, ed. D. A. Goslin. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Kohler, W. 1925. The Mentality of Apes. London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul. Reprint. New York: Liveright, 1976.

Konner, M.J. 1982. The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the

Human Spirit. New York: Harper & Row.

—. 1988. Is orgasm essential? Sciences, March-April 4-7.

Konner, M., and C. Worthman. 1980. Nursing frequency, gonadal

function, and birth spacing among !Kung hunter-gatherers. Science
207:788-91.

Krier, B. A. 1988. Why so many singles? Los Angeles Times, June 26.

Kristof, N. D. 1991. Love, the starry-eyed kind, casts spell on China.

New York Times, March 6.

Kruuk, H. 1972. The Spotted Hyena: A Study of Predation and Social

Behavior. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Kummer, H. 1968. Social Organization of Hamadryas Baboons

Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Kuroda, S. 1984. Interaction over food among Pygmy Chimpanzees. In

The Pygmy Chimpanzee, ed. R. L. Susman. New York: Plenum Press.

Lacey, W. K. 1973. Women in democratic Athens. In Women: From

the Greeks to the French Revolution, ed. S. G. Bell. Stanford: Stanford
Univ. Press.

Lack, D. 1968. Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds. London:

Me-thuen.

Laitman, J. T., R. C. Heimbuch, and E. S. Crelin. 1979. The

basicranium of fossil hominids as an indicator of their upper
respiratory system. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 51:15-
34.

Laitman, J. T. 1984. The anatomy of human speech. Natural History,

Aug.,

20-27.

Lampe, P. E., ed. 1987. Adultery in the United States: Close

Encounters of the Sixth (or Seventh) Kind. Buffalo: Prometheus
Books.

Lancaster, J. B. 1979. Sex and gender in evolutionary perspective. In

Human Sexuality, ed. M. Katchadourian Berkeley: Univ. of California
Press.

—. 1986. Human adolescence and reproduction: An evolutionary

perspective. In School-Age Pregnancy and Parenthood, ed. J. B.
Lancaster and B. A. Hamburg. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

—.In preparation. Parental investment and the evolution of the

juvenile phase of the human life course. In The Origins of Humanness,
ed. A. Brooks. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Lancaster, J. B., and C. S. Lancaster, 1983. Parental investment: The

hominid adaptation. In How Humans Adapt: A Biocultural Odyssey,
ed. D. J. Ortner. Washington, DO. Smithsonian Institution Press.

Latimer, B. M., T. D. White, W. H. Kimbel, D. C. Johanson, and C. O.

Lovejoy. 1981. The pygmy chimpanzee is not a living missing link in
human evolution. Journal of Human Evolution 10:475-88.

Lawrence, R. J. 1989. The Poisoning of Eros: Sexual Values in Conflict.

New York: Augustine Moore Press.

Lawson, A. 1988. Adultery: An Analysis of Love and Betrayal. New

York: Basic Books.

Leacock, E. B., ed. 1972. The Origins of the Family, Private Property
and the State, By Frederick Engels with an Introduction by Eleanor
Burke Leacock. New York: International Publishers.

Leacock, E. B. 1980. Montagnais women and the Jesuit program for

colonization. In Women and Colonization, ed. M. Etienne E. Leacock.
New York: Praeger.

—. 1981. Myths of Male Dominance. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Leakey, M. D. 1971. Olduvai Gorge. Vol. 3. London: Cambridge Univ.

Press.

Leakey, M. D., and R. L. Hay. 1979. Pliocene footprints in the Laetolil

beds at Laetoli, northern Tanzania. Nature 278:317-23.

Leakey, M. D., R. L. Hay, G. H. Curtis, R. E. Drake, M. K. Jackes, and

T. D. White. 1976. Fossil hominids from the Laetolil Beds. Nature
262:460-66.

LeBoeuf, B. J. 1974. Male-male competition and reproductive success

in elephant seals. American Zoologist 14:163-76.

Le Clercq, C. 1910. New relation of Gaspesia, ed. W. F. Ganong.

Toronto: Champlain Society.

Leder, G. C. 1990. Gender differences in mathematics. An overview. In

Mathematics and Gender, ed. E. Fennema and G. C. Leder. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Lee, R. B. 1968. What hunters do for a living, or, How to make out on
scarce resources. In Man the Hunter, ed. R. B. Lee aand I. DeVore.
New York: Aldine.

—. 1980. Lactation, ovulation, infanticide, and women's work: A study

of hunter-gatherer population regulation. In Biosocial Mechanisms of
Population Regulation, ed. M. N. Cohen, R. S. Malpass, and H. G.
Klein. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Lehrman, N. S. 1962. Some origins of contemporary sexual standards.

Journal of Religion and Health 1:362-86.
—. 1963. Moses, monotheism and marital fidelity. Journal of Religion
and Health 370-89.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1975. The flowers found with Shanidar IV: A

Neanderthal burial in Iraq. Science 190.562-64.

Levi-Strauss, C. 1985. The View from Afar. New York: Basic Books.

Levinger, G. 1968. Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An

integrative review. In Selected Studies in Marriage and the Family, ed.
R. R. Winch and L. L. Goodman. 3d ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.

Levitan, S. A., R. S. Belous, and F. Gallo. 1988. What's Happening to

the American Family? Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

Lewin, R. 1982. How did humans evolve big brains? Science 216:840-
41.

—. 1983a. Fossil Lucy grows younger, again. Science 219:43-44.

—. 1983b. Is the orangutan a living fossil? Science 222:1222-23.

—. 1985. Surprise findings in the Taung child's face. Science 228:42-

44.

—. 1987a. Africa: Cradle of modern humans. Science 237:1292-95.

—. 1987b. Four legs bad, two legs good. Science 235:969-71.

—. 1988a. A revolution of ideas in agricultural origins. Science

240:984-86.

—. 1988b. Conflict over DNA clock results. Science 241:1598-1600.

—. 1988c. DNA clock conflict continues. Science 241:1756-59.

—. i988d. Subtleties of mating competition. Science 242:668.

—. 1989. Species questions in modern human origins. Science
243:1666-67.

Lewis, H. T. 1989. Reply to Hominid use of fire in the Lower and

Middle Pleistocene: A review of the evidence, by S. R. James. Current
Anthropology 30:1-26.

Lewis, R. A., and G. B. Spanier. 1979. Theorizing about the quality and
stability of marriage. In Contemporary Theories about the Family, ed.
W. Burr, R. Hill, F. Nye, And I Reiss. New York: Free Press.

Lieberman, P. 1984. The Biology and Evolution of Language.

Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

Liebowitz, M. R. 1983. The Chemistry of Love. Boston: Little, Brown.

Lindburg, D. G. 1982. Primate obstetrics: The biology of birth.

American Journal of Primatology. Supplement. 1:193-99.

Lloyd, H. G. 1980. The Red Fox. London: Batsford.

Lloyd, P. 1968. Divorce among the Yoruba. American Anthropologist

70:67-81.

London, K. A., and B. Foley Wilson. 1988. D-i-v-o-r-c-e. American

Demographics, Oct., 22-26.

Lovejoy, C. O. 1981. The origin of man. Science 211:341-50.

Low, B. S. 1979. Sexual selection and human ornamentation. In

Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior, ed. N. A. Chagnon
and W. Irons. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press.

Low, B. S., R. D. Alexander, and K. M. Noonan. 1987. Human hips,

breasts and buttocks: Is fat deceptive? Ethology and Sociobiology 8
(no. 4): 249-58.

Lucretius. 1965. On the Nature of the Universe. New York: Frederick

Ungar.
Maccoby, E. E., and C. N. Jacklin. 1974. The Psychology of Sex
Differences. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.

Mace, D., and V. Mace. 1959. Marriage: East and West. Garden City,
N.Y.: Dolphin Books, Doubleday.

MacKinnon, J. 1979. Reproductive behavior in wild orangutan

populations. In The Great Apes, ed. D. A. Hamburg and E. R.
McCown. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.

MacLean, P. D. 1973. A Triune Concept of the Brain and Behaviour.

Toronto: Toronto Univ. Press.

Maglio, V. J. 1978. Patterns of faunal evolution. In Evolution of

African Mammals, ed. V. J. Maglio and H. B. S. Cooke. Cambridge:
Harvard Univ. Press.

Malinowski, B. 1965. Sex and Repression in Savage Society. New York:

World.

Mansperger, M. C. 1990. The precultural human mating system.

Journal of Human Evolution 5:245-59.

Marks, J. 1989. The hominin clad. Science 246:1645.

Marriage and Divorce Today. 1987. The hidden meaning: An analysis

of different types of affairs. June 1, pp. 1-2.

—. 1986. May 12, p. 1.

Martin, M. K., and B. Voorhies. 1975. Female of the Species. New

York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Martin, R. D. 1982. Human brain evolution in an ecological context.

Fifty-second James Arthur Lecture on the Evolution of the Human
Brain, American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Mascia-Lees, F. E., J. H. Relethford, and T. Sorger. 1986. Evolutionary

perspectives on permanent breast enlargement in human females.
American Anthropologist 88:423-29.

Maxwell, M. 1984. Human Evolution: A Philosophical Anthropology.

New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Maynard Smith, J. 1978. The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge: Cambridge

Univ. Press.

McClintock, M. K. 1971. Menstrual synchrony and suppression. Nature

229: 244-45.

McCorriston, J., and F. Hole. 1991. The ecology of seasonal stress and
the origins of agriculture in the Near East. American Anthropologist
93:46-69.

McGinnis, P. R. 1979. Sexual behavior in free-living chimpanzees:

Consort relationships. In The Great Apes, ed. D. A. Hamburg and E. R.
McCown. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.

McGrew, W. C. 1974. Tool use by wild chimpanzees in feeding upon

driver ants. Journal of Human Evolution 3:501-8.

—. 1979. Evolutionary implications of sex differences in chimpanzee

predation and tool use. In The Great Apes, ed. D. A. Hamburg and E.
R. McCown. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.

—. 1981. The female chimpanzee as a human evolutionary prototype.

In Woman the Gatherer, ed. F. Dahlberg. New Haven: Yale Univ.
Press.

McGuiness, D. 1976. Perceptual and cognitive differences between the

sexes. In Explorations in Sex Differences, B. Lloyd and J. Archer. New
York: Academic Press.

—. 1979. How schools discriminate against boys. Human Nature, Feb.,

82-88.

—. 1985. Sensory biases in cognitive development. In Male-Female

Differences: A Bio-Cultural Perspective, ed. R. L. Hall, P. Draper, M. E.
Hamilton, D. McGuinness, C. M. Otten, and E. A. Roth. New York:
Praeger.

McGuinness, D., and K. H. Pribram. 1979. The origin of sensory bias in

the development of gender differences in perception and cognition. In
Cognitive Growth and Development, ed. M. Bortner. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.

McGuire, M. M. Raleigh, and G. Brammer. 1982. Sociopharmacology.

Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 22:643-61.

McHenry, H. M. 1986. The first bipeds. Journal of Human Evolution

15:177.

McHenry, H. M., and C. J. O'Brien. 1986. Comment on H. T. Bunn and

E. M. Kroll, "Systematic butchery by Plio/Pleistocene hominids at
Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania." Current Anthropology 27:431-53.

McMillan, V. 1984. Dragonfly monopoly. Natural History, July, 33-38.

McWhirter, N., and R. McWhirter. 1975. Guinness Book of World

Records. New York: Sterling.

Mead, M. 1935. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies.

New York: William Morrow.

—. 1949. Male and Female. New York: William Morrow.

—. 1966. Marriage in two steps. Redbook, July, 47-49, 84, 86.

Mealey, L. 1985. The relationship between social status and biological

success: A case study of the Mormon religious hierarchy. Ethology and
Sociobiology

6:249-57-

Meggitt, M. J. 1962. Desert People: A Study of the Walbiri Aborigines

of
Central Australia. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Mellars, P. 1989. Major issues in the emergence of modern humans.

Current Anthropology 30:349-85.

Mellen, S. L. W. 1981. The Evolution of Love. San Francisco: W. H.

Freeman.

Michod, R. E. 1989. What's love got to do with it? The Sciences, May-
June, 22-28.

Michod, R. E., and B. R. Levin, eds. 1987. The Evolution of Sex: An

Examination of Current Ideas. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer.

Miller, J. A. 1983. Masculine/feminine behavior: New views. Science

News 124:326.

Mitterauer, M. and R. Sieder. 1982. The European Family: Patriarchy

to Partnership from the Middle Ages to the Present. Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press.

Miyamoto, M. M., J. L. Slightom, and M. Goodman. 1987.

Phylogenetic relations of humans and African apes from DNA
sequences in the v|/7-globin region. Science 238:369-72.

Mock, D. W., and M. Fujioka. 1990. Monogamy and long-term pair

bonding in vertebrates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5 (no. 2): 39-
43.

Moir, A., and D. Jessel. 1989. Brain Sex: The Real Differences between
Men and Women. London: Michael Joseph.

Moller, A. P. 1988. Ejaculate quality, testes size and sperm

competition in primates. Journal of Human Evolution 17:479.

Money, J. 1980. Love and Love Sickness: The Science of Sex, Gender
Difference, and Pair-Bonding. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

—. 1986. Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and

Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transposition in Childhood,
Adolescence and Maturity. New York: Irvington Publishers.

Money, J., and A. A. Ehrhardt. 1972. Man and Woman, Boy and Girl:
The Differentiation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity from
Conception to Maturity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

Montagu, A. 1937. Coming into Being among the Australian

Aborigines. London: Routledge.

—. 1961. Neonatal and infant immaturity in man. Journal of the

American Medical Association 178:56-57.

—. 1971. Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin. New York:

Columbia Univ. Press.

—. 1981. Growing Young. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, L. H. 1877. Ancient Society. New York: World.

Morris, D. 1967. The Naked Ape. New York: McGraw-Hill.

—. 1971. Intimate Behavior. New York: Bantam Books.

Morrison, P. 1987. Review of Dark caves, bright visions: Life in Ice Age
Europe, by Randall White. Scientific American 256 (no. 3):26-27.

Moss, C. 1988. Elephant Memories: Thirteen Years in the Life of an

Elephant Family. New York: William Morrow.

Murdock, G. P. 1949. Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

—. 1965. Family stability in non-European culture. In Culture and

Society, ed. G. P. Murdock. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.

—. 1967. Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.

Murdock, G. P., and D. R. White. 1969. Standard cross-cultural

sample. Ethnology 8:329-69.
Nadel, S. F. 1942. A Black Byzantium: The Kingdom of Nupe in
Nigeria. London: Oxford Univ. Press.

Nadler, R. D. 1975. Sexual cyclicity in captive lowland gorillas. Science

189:

813-14.

—. 1988. Sexual aggression in the great apes. In Human Sexual

Aggression, ed. R. A. Prentky and V. L. Quinsey. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, vol. 528:154-61. New York: NYAS.

Nimuendaju, C. 1946. The Eastern Timbira. Trans. R. H. Lowie. Univ.

of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology,
vol. 41. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

Nishida, T. 1979. The social structure of chimpanzees of the Mahali

Mountains. In The Great Apes, ed. D. A. Hamburg and E. R. McCown.
Mer.lo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.

Nissen, H. J. 1988. The Early History of the Ancient Near East, gooo-
2000 B.C. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Oakley, K. P. 1956. Fire as a Paleolithic tool and weapon. Proceedings

of the Prehistoric Society 21:36-48.

O'Brien, E. M. 1984. What was the acheulean hand ax? Natural

History, July, 20-24.

Okonjo, K. 1976. The dual-sex political system in operation: Igbo

women and community politics in midwestern Nigeria. In Women in
Africa: Studies in Social and Economic Change, ed. N. J. Hafkin and E.
G. Bay. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.

Orians, G. H. 1969. On the evolution of mating systems in birds and

mammals. American Naturalist 103:589-603.

Ortner, S. B., and H. Whitehead. 1981. Introduction: Accounting for

sexual meanings. In Sexual Meanings, ed. S. B. Ortner and H.
Whitehead. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Otten, C. M. 1985 Genetic effects on male and female development and

on the sex ratio. In Male-Female Differences: A Bio-Cultural
Perspective, ed. R. H. Hall, P. Draper, M. E. Hamilton, D.
McGuinness, C. M. Otten, and E. A. Roth. New York: Praeger.

Pagels, E. 1988. Adam, Eve and the Serpent. New York: Vintage Books.

Parker, G. A., R. R. Baker, and V. G. F. Smith. 1972. The origin and

evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon.
Journal of Theoretical Biology 36:529-53.

Pavelka, M. S., and L. M. Fedigan. 1991. Menopause: A comparative

life history perspective. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 34:13-38.

Peck, J. R., and M. W. Feldman. 1988. Kin selection and the evolution
of monogamy. Science 240:1672-74.

People magazine. 1986. Unfaithfully Yours: Adultery in America. Aug.

18,

85^5-

Perper, T. 1985. Sex Signals: The Biology of Love. Philadelphia: ISI

Press.

Pfeiffer, J. E. 1982. The Creative Explosion: An Inquiry into the

Origins of Art and Religion. New York: Harper & Row.

Phillips, R. 1988. Putting Asunder: A History of Divorce in Western

Society. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. press.

Pilbeam, D. 1985. Patterns of hominoid evolution. In Ancestors: The

Hard Evidence, ed. E. Delson. New York: Alan R. Liss.

Pittman, F. 1989. Private Lies: Infidelity and the Betrayal of Intimacy.

New York: W. W. Norton.
Plooij, F. X. 1978. Tool-use during chimpanzee's bushpig hunt.
Carnivore 1:103-6.

Potts, R. 1984. Home bases and early hominids. American Scientist

72:338-47.

—. 1988. Early Hominid Activities at Olduvai. New York: Aldine de

Gruyter.

—. 1991. Untying the knot: Evolution of early human behavior. In

Manand Beast Revisited, ed. M. H. Robinson and L. Tiger.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Power, E. 1973. The position of women. In Women: From the Creeks

to the French Revolution, ed. S. G. Bell. Stanford: Stanford Univ.
Press.

Preti, G., W. B Cutler, C. R. Garcia, G. R. Huggins, and H. J. Lawley.

1986. Human axillary secretions influence women's menstrual cycles:
The role of donor extract of females. Hormones and Behavior 20:474-
82.

Price, D., and J. A. Brown, eds. 1985. Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers:

The Emergence of Cultural Complexity. New York: Academic Press.

Pusey, A. E. 1979. Intercommunity transfer of chimpanzees in Gombe

National Park. In The Great Apes, ed. D. A. Hamburg and E. R.
McCown. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.

—. 1980. Inbreeding avoidance in chimpanzees. Animal Behavior

28:543-52.

Quadagno, D. M, H. E. Shubeita, J. Deck, and D. Francoeur. 1981.

Influence of male social contacts, exercise and all-female living
conditions on the menstrual cycle. Psychoneuroendocrinology 6:239-
44.

Queen, S. A., and R. W. Habenstein. 1974. The Family in Various

Cultures. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1922. The Andaman Islanders. Cambridge:

Cambridge Univ. Press.

Raleigh, M. et al. In press. Serotonergic mechanisms promote

dominance acquisition in adult male vervet monkeys. Brain Research.

Rancourt-Laferriere, D. 1983. Four adaptive aspects of the female

orgasm. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 6:319-33.

Rawson, B. ed. 1986. The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives.

Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.

Reichard, G. S. 1950. Navaho Religion. New York: Bollingen

Foundation.

Reiter, R. R. 1975. Introduction. In Toward an Anthropology of

Women, ed. R. R. Reiter. New York: Monthly Review Press.

—, ed. 1975. Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York: Monthly

Review Press.

Repenning C. A., and O. Fejfar. 1982. Evidence for early date of

Ubeidiya, Israel, hominid site. Nature 299:344-47.

Retallack, G. J., D. P. Dugas, and E. A. Bestland. 1990. Fossil soils and

grasses of the Middle Miocene East African grassland. Science
247:1325.

Roberts, L. 1988. Zeroing in on the sex switch. Science 239:21-23.

Rodman, P. S. 1988. Orangutans. Institute of Human Origins

Newsletter 6 (no. l): 5 .

Rogers, S. C. 1975. Female forms of power and the myth of male

dominance: A model of female/male interaction in peasant society.
American Ethnologist
2:727-56.

Rohrlich-Leavitt, R. B. Sykes, and E. Weatherford. 1975. Aboriginal

woman: Male and female, anthropological perspectives. In Toward an
Anthropology of Women, ed. R. R. Reiter. New York: Monthly Review
Press.

Rosaldo, M. Z. 1974. Woman, culture, and society: A theoretical

overview. In Woman, Culture, and Society, ed. M. Z. Rosaldo and L.
Lamphere. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.

Rosaldo, M. Z., and L. Lamphere, eds. 1974. Women, Culture, and

Society. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.

Rose, M. D. 1983. Miocene hominoid postcranial morphology:

monkey-like, ape-like, neither, or both? In New Interpretations of Ape
and Human Ancestry, ed. R. L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini. New
York: Plenum Press.

Rose, R. M., J. W. Holaday and I. S. Bernstein. iQ7i.»Plasma

testosterone, dominance rank and aggressive behavior in male rhesus
monkeys. Nature 231: 366-68.

Rose, R. M., I. S. Bernstein, T. P. Gordon, and S. F. Catlin. 1974.

Androgens and aggression: A review and recent findings in primates.
Primate Aggression, Territoriality, and Xenophobia, ed. R. L.
Holloway. New York: Academic Press.

Rosenblum, A. 1976. The Natural Birth Control Book. Philadelphia:

Aquarian Research Foundation.

Rossi, A. 1984. Gender and parenthood. American Sociological Review

49:1-19.

Rowell, T. E. 1972. Female reproductive cycles and social behavior in

primates. In Advances in the Study of Behavior, Vol 4, ed. D. S.
Lehrman, R. A. Hinde, and E. Shaw. New York: Academic Press.
Rue, L. L. 1969. The World of the Red Fox. Philadelphia: J. B.
Lippincott.

Ruse, M. 1988. Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry. Oxford: Basil

Black-well.

Russell, M. J. 1976. Human olfactory communication. Nature

260:520-22.

Russett, C. E. 1989. Sexual Science: The Victorian Construction of

Womanhood. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

Rutberg, A. T. 1983. The evolution of monogamy in primates. Journal

of Theoretical Biology 104:93-112.

Ryan, A. S., and D. C. Johanson. 1989. Anterior dental microwear in

Australopithecus afarensis: Comparisons with human and nonhuman
primates. Journal of Human Evolution 18:235-68.

Ryder, N. B. 1974. The family in developed countries. Scientific

American, March, 123-32.

Sabelli, H. C. 1991. Rapid treatment of depression with selegiline-

phenylalanine combination. Letter to the editor. Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry 52:3.

Sabelli, H. C, L. Carlson-Sabelli, and J. I. Javaid. 1990. The

thermodynamics of bipolarity: A bifurcation model of bipolar illness
and bipolar character and its psychotherapeutic applications.
Psychiatry 53:346-68.

Sacks, K. 1971. Comparative notes on the position of women. Paper

delivered at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological
Association, Washington, DC.

—. 1979. Sisters and Wives: The Past and Future of Sexual Equality.
Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.

Sade, D. S. 1968. Inhibition of son-mother mating among free-ranging

rhesus monkeys. Science and Psychoanalysis 12:18-37.

Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age Economics. New York: Aldine.

Sanday, P. R. 1974. Female status in the public domain. In Woman,

Culture, and Society, ed. M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere. Stanford:
Stanford Univ. Press.

—. 1981. Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual

Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Sapolsky, R. M. 1983. Endocrine aspects of social instability in the

olive baboon. American Journal of Primatology 5:365-76.

Sarich, V. M., and A. C. Wilson. 1967a. Immunological time scale for

hominid evolution. Science 158:1200-1203.

—. 1967b. Rates of albumin evolution in primates. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences 58:142-48.

Sarich, V. M., and J. E. Cronin. 1976. Molecular systematics of the

primates. In Molecular Anthropology, ed. M. Goodman and R. E.
Tashian. New York: Plenum Press.

Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., and B. J. Wilkerson. 1978. Socio-sexual

behavior in Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes: A comparative study.
Journal of Human Evolution 7:327-44.

Schaller, G. B. 1972. The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey

Relations. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Schaller, G. B., and G. R. Lowther. 1969. The relevance of carnivore

behavior to the study of early hominids. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 25:307-41

Schlegel, A. 1972. Male Dominance and Female Autonomy: Domestic

Authority in Matrilineal Societies. New Haven: HRAF Press.

Schneider, H. K. 1971. Romantic love among the Turu. In Human

Sexual Behavior, ed. D. S. Marshall and R. C. Suggs. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Schrire, C, ed. 1984. Past and Present in Hunter-Gatherer Societies.

New York: Academic Press.

Seligman, J. 1990. Variations on a theme. Newsweek Special Edition,

Winter/ Spring, 38-46.

Service, E. R. 1978. The Arunta of Australia. In Profiles in Ethnology,

ed. E. R. Service. 3d ed. York: Harper & Row.

Sexuality Today. 1988. Approaching the male of the species. March 7,

p. 5.

Shepher, J. 1971. Mate selection among second generation kibbutz

adolescents and adults: Incest avoidance and negative imprinting.
Archives of Sexual Behavior 1:293-307.

—. 1983. Incest — A Biosocial View. New York: Academic Press.

Sherfey, M.J. 1972. The Nature and Evolution of Female Sexuality.

New York: Vintage Books.

Sherman, J. 1978. Sex-Related Cognitive Differences: An Essay on

Theory and Evidence. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas.

Shipman, P. 1984. Scavenger Hunt. Natural History, April, 20-27.

—. 1986. Scavenging or hunting in early hominids: Theoretical

framework and tests. American Anthropologist 88:27-43.

—. 1987. Studies of hominid-faunal interaction at Olduvai Gorge.

Journal of Human Evolution 15:691-706.

Shorey, H. H. 1976. Animal Communication by Pheromones. New

York: Academic Press.

Short, R. V. 1976. The evolution of human reproduction. Proceedings

of the Royal Society, ser. B, 195:3-24.

—. 1977. Sexual selection and descent of man. In Reproduction and

Evolution, ed. J. H. Calaby and C. Tyndale-Biscoe. Canberra:
Australian Academy of Science.

—. 1984. Breast feeding. Scientific American, April, 35-41.

Shostak. M. 1981. Nisa: The Life and Words of a iKung Woman. New
York: Random House.

Sibley, C, and J. Ahlquist. 1984. The phylogeny of hominoid primates,

as indicted by DNA-DNA hybridization. Journal of Molecular
Evolution 20:2-11.

Silverman, I., and M. Beals. 1990. Sex differences in spatial abilities:

Evolutionary theory and data. Paper delivered at the annual meeting
of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Los Angeles.

Silverstein, C. 1981. Man to Man: Gay Couples in America. New York:

William Morrow.

Simons, E. L. 1985. Origins and characteristics of the first hominoids.

In Ancestors: The Hard Evidence, ed. E. Delson. New York: Alan R.
Liss.

—. 1989. Human origins. Science 245:1343-50.

Simpson-Hebert, M., and S. L. Huffman. 1981. The contraceptive

effect of breastfeeding. In Breastfeeding, ed. E. C. Baer and B.
Winikoff. Special Issue of Studies in Family Planning 12 (no. 4): 125-
33.

Sinclair, A. R. E., M. D. Leakey, and M. Norton-Griffiths. 1986.

Migration and Hominid bipedalism. Nature 324:307.

Slocum, S. 1975. Woman the gatherer: Male bias in anthropology. In

Toward an Anthropology of Women, ed. R. R. Reiter. New York:
Monthly Review Press.
Small, M. F. 1988. Female primate sexual behavior and conception:
Are there really sperm to spare? Current Anthropology 29:81-100.

Smith, B. H. 1986. Dental development in Australopithecus and early

Homo. Nature 323:327.

Smith, R. L. 1984. Human sperm competition. In Sperm Competition

and the Evolution of Mating Systems, ed. R. L. Smith. New York:
Academic Press.

Smuts, Barbara B. 1985. Sex and Friendship in Baboons. New York:

Aldine de Gruyter.

—. 1987. What are friends for? Natural History, Feb., 36-44.

—. 1992. Male-infant relationships in nonhuman primates: Parental

investment or mating effort? In Father Child Relations, ed. B. Hewlett.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Solecki, R. S. 1971. Shanidar: The First Flower People. New York:

Knopf.

—. 1989. On the evidence for Neanderthal burial. Current

Anthropology

30:324.

Solway, J. S., and R. B. Lee. 1990. Foragers, genuine or spurious?

Current Anthropology 31:109-46.

Sostek, A. J., and R. J. Wyatt. 1981. The chemistry of crankiness.

Psychology Today, Oct., 120.

Spencer, R. F. 1959. The North Alaskan Eskimo: A Study in Ecology

and Society. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Spiro, M. E. 1958. Children of the Kibbutz. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.

Press.
Springer, S. P., and G. Deutsch. 1985. Left Brain, Right Brain. Rev. ed.
San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Stendhal. [1822] 1975. Love. Trans. G. Sale and S. Sale.

Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

Stephens, W. N. 1963. The Family in Cross-Cultural Perspective. New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Stoehr, T., ed. 1979. Free Love in America: A Documentary History.

New York: AMS Press.

Stone, L. 1990. Road to Divorce: England, 1530-1987. New York:

Oxford Univ. Press.

Strassman, B. I. 1981. Sexual selection, parental care, and concealed

ovulation in humans. Ethology and Sociobiology 2:31-40.

Straus, L. G. 1989. On early hominid use of fire. Current Anthropology

30:488-

89.

Stringer, C. B., and P. Andrews, 1988. Genetic and fossil evidence for
the origin of modern humans. Science 239:1263-68.

Strum, S. 1990. Almost Human: A Journey into the World of Baboons.

New York: W. W. Norton.

Suggs, R. C., and D. S. Marshall. 1971. Anthropological perspectives on

human sexual behavior. In Human Sexual Behavior, ed. D. S. Marshall
and R. C. Suggs. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Susman, R. L. 1984. The locomotor behavior of Pan paniscus in the

Lomako Forest. In The Pygmy Chimpanzee, ed. R. L. Susman. New
York: Plenum Press.

—. 1989. New hominid fossils from the Swartkrans formation

excavations (1979-1986): Postcranial specimens. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 79>45i-7'4-

—. 1990. Evidence for tool behavior in the earliest hominids. Paper

delivered at the Anthropology Section of the New York Academy of
Sciences, Nov. 19.

Susman, R. L., J. T. Stern, Jr., and W. L. Jungers. 1985. Locomotor

adaptations in the Hadar hominids. In Ancestors: The Hard Evidence,
ed. E. Delson. New York: Alan R. Liss.

Symons, D. 1979. The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York:

Oxford Univ. Press.

Symons, D. 1982. Another woman that never existed. Quarterly

Review of Biology 57:297-300.

Symons, D., and B. Ellis. 1989. Human male-female differences in

sexual desire. In The Sociobiology of Sexual and Reproductive
Strategies, ed. A. E. Rasa, C. Vogel, and E. Voland. New York:
Chapman and Hall.

Tanner, N. M. 1981. On Becoming Human. Cambridge: Cambridge

Univ. Press.

Tanner, N. M., and A. L. Zihlman. 1976. Women in evolution. Part I:

Innovation and selection in human origins. Signs: Journal of Women
in Culture and Society 1:585-608.

Tavris, C, and S. Sadd. 1977. The Redbook Report on Female Sexuality.

New York: Delacorte Press.

Teleki, G. 1973a. The Predatory Behavior of Wild Chimpanzees.

Lewisburg: Bucknell Univ. Press.

—. 1973b. The omnivorous chimpanzee. Scientific American, Jan., 3-

12.

Tennov, D. 1979. Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in

Love. New York: Stein and Day.
Textor, R. B. 1967. A Cross-Cultural Summary. New Haven: HRAF
Press

Thomas, H. 1985. The Early and Middle Miocene land connection of

the Afro-Arabian plate and Asia: A major event for hominoid
dispersal? In Ancestors: The Hard Evidence, ed. E. Delson. New York:
Alan R. Liss.

Thompson-Handler, N., R. K. Malenky, and N. Badrian. 1984. Sexual

behavior of Pan paniscus under natural conditions in the Lomako
Forest, Equateur, Zaire. In The Pygmy Chimpanzee, ed. R. L. Susman.
New York: Plenum Press.

Thornhill, R., and J. Alcock. 1983. The Evolution of Insect Mating

Systems. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

Tiger, L. 1992. The Pursuit of Pleasure, Boston: Little, Brown.

Tobias, P. V. 1991. Olduvai Gorge. Vol. 4, The Skulls, Endocasts and

Teeth of Homo habilis. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Tofler, A. 1980. The Third Wave. New York: William Morrow.

Torrence, R., ed. 1989. Time, Energy and Stone Tools. New York:
Cambridge Univ. Press.

Trevathan, W. R. 1987. Human Birth: An Evolutionary Perspective.

New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual

Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871-1971, ed. B. Campbell.
Chicago: Aldine.

—. 1985. Social Evolution. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.

Tunnell/G. G. 1990. Systematic scavenging: Minimal energy

expenditure at Olare Orok in the Serengeti ecosystem. In Problem
Solving in Taphonomy, ed. S. Solomon, I. Davidson, and D. Watson.
Santa Lucia, Queensland, Australia: Univ. of Queensland Press.

Turke, P. W. 1984. Effects of ovulatory concealment and synchrony on

protohominid mating systems and parental roles. Ethology and
Sociobiology 5:33-44

Turnbull, C. M. 1981. Mbuti womanhood. In Woman the Gatherer, ed.

F. Dahlberg. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Tutin, C. E. G. 1979. Mating patterns and reproductive strategies in a

community of wild chimpanzees {Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii).
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 6:39-48.

Tutin, C. E. G., and R. McGinnis. 1981. Chimpanzee reproduction in

the wild. In Reproductive Biology of the Great Apes, ed. C. E. Graham.
New York: Academic Press.

Tuttle, R. H. 1990. The pitted pattern of Laetoli feet. Natural History,

March, 61-64.

Tylor, E. B. 1889. On a method of investigating the development of

institutions: Applied to laws of marriage and descent. Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute 18:245 -69.

Udry, J. R., and N. M. Morris. 1977. The distribution of events in the

human menstrual cycle. Journal of Reproductive Fertility 51419-25.

United Nations. Statistical Office, Department of Economic and Social

Affairs. 1955. Divorce rates per 1000 married couples, 1935-53
Demographic Yearbook: 1954. Chart 35. New York: United Nations.

—. 1958. Technical Notes. Demographic Yearbook: 1954. New York:

United Nations.

—. 1984. Demographic Yearbook: 1982. New York: United Nations.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1986. Statistical Abstract of the United

States. Washington D.C. 1985. Chart 124.
Van Allen, J. 1976. "Aba Riots" or Igbo Women's War? Ideology,
Stratification, and the Invisibility of Women. In Women in Africa, ed.
N. J. Haflcin and E. G. Bay. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.

Van Couvering, J. A., and J. A. H. Van Couvering. 1975. African

isolation and the Tethys seaway. In Proceedings of the VI Congress of
the Regional Committee on Mediterranean Neogene Stratigraphy.
Bratislava: Slovak Academy of Science.

Van Couvering, J. A. H. 1980. Community evolution and succession in

East Africa during the Late Cenozoic. In Bones in the Making, ed. A.
Hill and K. Berensmeyer. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

van den Berghe, P. L. 1979. Human Family Systems: An Evolutionary

View Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Vandiver, P., O. Soffer, B. Klima, and J. Svoboda. 1989. The origins of

ceramic technology at Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslovakia. Science
246:1002-8.

Van Gulik, R. 1974. Sexual Life in Ancient China: A Preliminary Survey

of Chinese Sex and Society from Ca. 1500 BC until 1644 AD. Leiden: E.
J. Brill.

Van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. 1971. Aspects of the Social Behavior and

Communication in Human and Higher Non-Human Primates.
Rotterdam: Bronder-Off-set.

Van Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1:1-

30.

Veit, P. G. 1982. Gorilla society. Natural History, March, 48-58.

Velle, W. 1982. Sex, hormones and behavior in animals and man.

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 25:295-3 1 5 •

Verner, J., and M. F. Willson. 1966. The influence of habitats on

mating systems of North American passerine birds. Ecology 47:143-47.
Vital Statistics of the United States, i960. 1964. Vol. 3. Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Health Statistics. Table 4-7.

—. 1970. 1974. Vol. 3. Rockville, Md.: National Center for Health

Statistics. Table 2-4.

—. 1977. 1981. Vol. 3. Hyattsville, Md.. National Center for Health

Statistics. Table 2-17.

—. 1979. 1984. Vol. 3. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health

Statistics. Table 2-22.

—. 1981. 1985. Vol. 3. Hyattsville, Md: National Center for Health

Statistics. Table 2-13.

—. 1983. 1987. Vol. 3. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health

Statistics. Table 2-10.

—. 1986. 1990. Vol. 3. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health

Statistics. Table 2-29.

Vrba, E. S. 1985. African Bovidae: Evolutionary events since the

Miocene. South African Journal of Science 81: 263-66.

Wagner, J., ed. 1982. Sex Roles in Contemporary American

Communes. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.

Washburn, S. L., and C. S. Lancaster, 1968. The evolution of hunting.

In Man the Hunter, ed. R. B. Lee and I. DeVore. New York: Aldine.

Washburn, S. L., and R. Moore. 1974. Ape into Man: A Study of

Human Evolution. Boston: Little, Brown.

Watanabe, H. 1985. Why Did Man Stand Up?: An Ethnoarchaeological

Model for Hominization. Tokyo: Univ. of Tokyo Press.

Weiner, A. B. 1976. Women of Value, Men of Renown: New

Perspective in Trobriand Exchange. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.
Weisman, S. R. 1988. Broken marriage and brawl test a cohesive cast.
New York Times, Feb. 21.

Weiss, R. 1987. "How dare we? Scientists seek the sources of risk-
taking behavior. Science News 132:57-59.

—. 1988. Women's skills linked to estrogen levels. Science News

134:341.

Weiss, R. S. 1975. Marital Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Werner, D. 1984. Paid sex specialists among the Mekranoti. Journal of

Anthropological Research 40:394-405.

Westermarck, E. 1922. The History of Human Marriage. 5th ed. New

York: Allerton.

—. 1934. Recent theories of exogamy. Sociological Review 26:22-44.

Westneat, D. F., P. W. Sherman, and M. L. Morton. 1990. The ecology

and evolution of extra-pair copulations in birds. In Current
Ornithology. Vol. 7, ed. D. M. Power. New York: Plenum Press.

White, J. M. 1987. Premarital cohabitation and marital stability in

Canada. Journal of Marriage and the Family 49:641-47.

White, R. 1986. Dark Caves, Bright Visions: Life in Ice Age Europe.
New York: American Museum of Natural History.

—. 1989a. Visual thinking in the Ice Age. Scientific American July, 92-
99.

—. 1989b. Production complexity and standardization in Early

Aurignacian bead and pendant manufacture: Evolutionary
implications, In The Human Revolution, ed. P. Mellars and C. B.
Stringer. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.

White. T. D. 1977. New fossil hominids from Laetoli, Tanzania.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 46:197-229.
—. 1980. Additional fossil hominids from Laetoli, Tanzania: 1976-1979
specimens. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 53:487-504.

—. 1985. The hominids of Hadar and Laetoli: An element-by-element

comparison of the dental samples. In Ancestors: The Hard Evidence,
ed. E. Delson. New York: Alan R. Liss.

Whiting, B. 1965. Sex identity conflict and physical violence: A

comparative study. American Anthropologist 67:123-40.

Whiting, B. B., and J. W. M. Whiting. 1975. Children in Six Cultures.

Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

Whitten, R. G. 1982. Hominid promiscuity and the sexual life of proto-

savages: Did Australopithecus swing? Current Anthropology 23:99-
101.

Whyte, M. K. 1978. The Status of Women in Preindustrial Societies.

Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

—. 1990. Dating, Mating, and Marriage. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Wickler, W. 1976. The Ethological Analysis of Attachment. Berlin:

Verlag Paul Parey.

Williams, G. C. 1975. Sex and Evolution. Princeton: Princeton Univ.

Press.

Wilmsen. E. N. 1989. Land Filled with Flies: A Political Economy of

the Kalahari. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Wilmsen, E. N., and J. R. Denbow. 1990. Paradigmatic history of San-

speaking peoples and current attempts at revision. Current
Anthropology 31489-524.

Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge:

Belknap Press/Harvard Univ. Press.

Wilson, H. C. 1988. Male axillary secretions influence women's

menstrual cycles: A critique. Hormones and Behavior 22:266-71.

Wilson, M., and M. Daly. 1991. The man who mistook his wife for a
chattel. In The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the
Generation of Culture, ed. J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Wittenberger, J. F., and R. L. Tilson. 1980. The evolution of

monogamy: Hypotheses and evidence. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 11: 197-232.

Wolfe, L. 1981. Women and Sex in the 80s: The Cosmo Report. New
York: Arbor House.

Wolpoff, M. H. 1980. Paleo-Anthropology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

—. 1982. Ramapithecus and hominid origins. Current Anthropology

23:501-22.

—. 1984. Evolution of Homo erectus: The question of stasis.

Paleobiology 10:389-406.

—. 1989. Multiregional evolution: The fossil alternative to Eden. In

The Human Revolution, ed. P. Mellars and C. B. Stringer. Vol. 1.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.

Wolpoff, M. H., J. N. Spuhler, F. H. Smith, J. Radovcic, G. Pope, D. W.

Frayer, R. Eckhardt, and G. Clark. 1988. Modern human origins.
Science

241:772-74.

Woodburn, J. 1968. An introduction to Hadza ecology. In Man the

Hunter, ed. R. B. Lee and I. DeVore. New York: Aldine.

Wrangham, R. W. 1977. Feeding behavior of chimpanzees in Gombe

National Park, Tanzania. In Primate Ecology, ed. T. H. Clutton-Brock.
London: Academic Press.
—. 1979a. On the evolution of ape social systems. Social Science
Information 18:335-68.

—. 1979b. Sex differences in chimpanzee dispersion. In The Great

Apes, ed. D. A. Hamburg and E. R. McCown. Menlo Park, Calif.:
Benjamin/Cum-mings.

WuDunn, S. 1991. Romance, a novel idea, rocks marriages in China.

New York Times, April 17.

Yerkes, R. M., and J. H. Elder. 1936. Oestrus, receptivity and mating in

the chimpanzee. Comparative Psychology Monographs 13:1-39.

Zihlman, A. L. 1979. Pygmy chimpanzee morphology and the

interpretation of early hominids. South African Journal of Science
75:165-68.

—. 1981. Women as shapers of the human adaptation. In Woman the

Gatherer, ed. F. Dahlberg. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Zihlman, A. L., and N. Tanner. 1978. Gathering and hominid

adaptation. In Female Hierarchies, ed. L. Tiger and H. Fowler.
Chicago: Beresford Book Service.!

Zihlman, A. L., J. E. Cronin, D. L. Cramer, and V. M. Sarich. 1987.

Pygmy chimpanzee as a possible prototype for the common ancestor of
humans, chimpanzees and gorillas. In Interpretations of Ape and
Human Ancestry, ed. R. L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini. New York:
Plenum Press.

Zimen, E., ed. 1980. The Red Fox: Symposium on Behavior and
Ecology. The Hague: Junk.

Zuckerman, M. 1971. Dimensions of sensation seeking. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology 36:45-52.

Zuckerman, M, M. S. Buchsbaum, and D. L. Murphy. 1980. Sensation

seeking and its biological correlates. Psychological Bulletin 88:187-
214.

Zuckerman, M, J. A. Hall, S. W. DeFrank, and R. Rosenthal. 1976.

Encoding and decoding of spontaneous and posed facial expressions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34:966-77.

Zuckerman, Sir S. 1932. The Social Life of Monkeys and Apes. London:
Butler and Turner.

Page numbers beginning with 313 refer to notes.

Aba Riots (Igbo Women's War), 209-11,

213-14

aborigines, Australian, 153

initiation rituals of, 241-42

marriages of, 168, 211, 212

mnemonics of, 241

power among, 211-12 abortion rights, 279, 297, 306, 307,

351 Abu-Lughod, Lila, 98 abuse, 166, 169

family violence and, 87, 100, 101, 160, 165,166,212,213,265 Acheulean

hand axes, 230 Ackerman, Charles, 326 active listening, 204 adaptive
radiation, 125 adolescence, see puberty; teenagers adolescent
subfertility, 306-7 adrenaline, 55

adultery, 12, 13, 40, 64-65, 75-97, 127,

131,137,159,234,257,283,288,310, 320-23

brain chemistry and, 172-73

without coitus, 78, 79

commuter marriages and, 301

cross-cultural prevalence of, 77, 86-87, 90-91,93-94,321

cultural mores and, 75-84, 86-87, 168

duration of, 322

estrus loss and, 185

in farming societies, 79-80, 89, 93, 311

gender differences in, 87-95

of !Kung, 90-91, 260, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266

jus primae noctis, 78

kinship and, 78, 270, 321

of Mehinaku, 268, 269-70, 271

moral development and, 257-58

punishments for, 79-80, 82, 87, 165, 254,

264,270,279,321,322 as reason for divorce, 89, 102, 279, 289,

324 reasons for, 87-89, 95-97, 171-72 as religious sin, 81-84,97 as

reproductive strategy, 87-93, 94-95,

96-97,141 sexual double standard for, 79, 81, 82, 85,

89,93,279,311 sexual emotions in, 163, 167, 168,

171-93, 174 timing of, 322-23 in United States, 64-65, 78, 79, 80,

84-86,87,89-90,92,95,172-73 see also prostitution AfikpoIbo,318

Africa, 20, 22, 23, 46, 50, 73, 74, 78-79, 90,
92,94,115,196,199,325,350 ancient ecology of, 118-19, 124, 139,

144-45,200,201,206,227,334 climate change in, 122-26 colonialism in,

209-11,213-14 evolution in, see hominids; hominoids volcanoes of,
124, 126, 139 African Queen, The, 161 age factors, 185,256,262,351
advantages for women, 308-9 in divorce, 112-14, 115, 157,310 in
marriage, 82, 108, 262, 295, 296-97,

298,300,301,349,354-55 in menarche, 262, 306-7, 351 in monogamy,

157, 159

NDEX

age factors (continued)

in power, 218, 280, 281

in remarriage, 114, 159, 325, 335, 355 aggression, 189, 196-97, 198,
199, 203, 204, 255

testosterone linked to, 196, 197, 287 agrarian patriarchal societies, see
farming

societies, patriarchal ajois, 77

Alaska, 69-70, 214-15,325,344 albatrosses, 20, 330 Albert National

Park, Uganda, 347 Alexander, Richard, 257-58 Alford, Robert, 345
algae, 317 Algeria, 237 Algonkian, 344 alliances, social,
102,214,215,256

chimpanzee, 220-21,222,308

through marriage, 102, 160-61, 250, 311 alligators, 36 alloparents, 157

altriciality, 151, 152, 153, 230-32, 233, 234, 235,238

cephalo-pelvic disproportion and, 230-31, 232, 346

secondary, 231, 346 altruism, 256, 317-18 Amazonia, 20, 23, 74, 76-77,
93, 115, 153,

182,218,253-54,260,266,280 amber, 248 American Museum of

Natural History,

259-60 amphetamines, 53-54, 57, 163, 306 amygdala, 255 anatomical

features:

hominid, 140, 141, 149, 205-7, 340, 344

hominoid, 119-20

of Homo erectus, 229

human sexual, see sexual selection

of Neanderthals, 243-44 Ancient Society (Morgan), 282 Andaman

Islanders, 116 Andreas Capellanus, 49 androcentrism, 212, 213 Anglo-
Saxons, 289 animals, 20, 21, 28, 54, 94, 164, 176, 347

ancient African, 118-19, 139, 144-45, 200,201,227

attachment in, 337, 338

in cave paintings, 239-41

domestication of, 276, 278, 351

face-to-face coitus of, 129, 130, 331

female orgasms of, 183-84

homosexuality of, 122, 129, 167, 329

Ice Age, 240, 246, 247, 274

incest avoidance of, 126, 127, 132, 251-52

jealous behavior of, 168-69

kinship among, 155, 224, 233-34

love at first sight in, 50-51

pair-bonding of, 144, 149-52, 154, 334, 335

rape in, 122,252,330

reproductive strategies of, 60, 64, 70, 72, 149-52,318,319

sexual emotions in, 167, 168-69, 172, 173

sexual selection in, 175, 176-78, 183-84

social instincts of, 256-57

surfeit response of, 164-65

see also estrus; specific animals annulments, 289, 290, 327 Antarctica,
123 antelopes, 21, 124, 129, 139, 150, 201, 203,

333 Apache, 35

apes, 133, 141,144, 153,181, 214, 231, 232, 336

hominoids and, 119, 120-22, 125-37

incest avoidance of, 126, 127, 132, 252

see also chimpanzees; gorillas; orangutans; pygmy chimpanzees

apocrine glands, 41 Arabs, 73, 98-99, 100

see also Islam ard, 278

ArnhemZoo, 219-24, 308 art, 212, 239-42, 245-49, 348

see also cave paintings Arunta aborigines, 241-42 asceticism, 82-83

asexual reproduction, 60, 61, 62, 317 associations, 305, 356 assortive
mating, 48 Assyria, 279

attachment, 12, 144, 162-69, 173, 174, 231, 250, 340

abuse endured for, 166, 169

in animals, 337, 338

brain chemistry of, 57, 62, 163-64, 165, 166,171,306

duration of, 57

grief at loss of, 166, 170, 171,174

homosexual, 166-67

jealousy in, see jealousy

orgasm conducive to, 183, 340

411

pining in, 166,169, 306

sites of, 337-38

see also detachment; pair-bonding attachment junkies, 166, 306

Auden,W.H, 51,54 Augustine, Saint, 84, 289-90 Australia, 62, 66, 94,
318-19, 321, 348

aborigines of, see aborigines, Australian Australopithecus afarensis,

140-43, 144,

158,206,335 Australopithecus boisei, 205-6 Australopithecus

robustus, 206, 228, 343 Austria, 276 Aweikoma, 116

baboons, 54, 134, 139, 146, 147, 298, 333

estrusof, 121, 155

infant, 155

matriline of, 155,224,234

rank among, 155

sexual behavior of, 22-23, 26, 50, 121, 349

special friendships of, 154-55 baby boomers, 112

divorce rates and, 295, 296-97

as entrepreneurs, 307 baby bust, divorce rates and, 296 Babylonians,

216, 279 Bachofen, Johann Jakob, 281-82, 283, 284 bacteria, 61, 232
Bali, 23, 50, 344 Barash, David, 168-69 basicranium, 243-44
battering, 100, 101,166,212,213

in birds, 168-69 Baudelaire, Pierre Charles, 41 Baulieu, Etienne-Emile,

306 Beach, Frank, 32, 92-93, 321 Beals, Marion, 193 beards, 46, 175,
180, 181 Beatles, 107, 140 beauty standards, 46-47

body embellishments in, 46

cross-cultural elements of, 47 beavers, 41 Bedouins, 98-99 Bellacoola,

253 Bern-Bern, 50 bestiality, 82 Betzig, Laura, 102 Bible, 81-82, 83,
279

wicked, 97 big-game hunting, 148, 235, 246, 248, 347

bipedalism, 139-40, 141, 147-49, 153, 156,

177,179,341 bird-dogging, 26

birds, 20, 21, 64, 139, 164, 173, 176, 200, 201,251,330,347,350

courtship feeding by, 35, 94

homosexual behavior of, 167

jealous behavior of, 168-69

leking ground of, 3 3-34, 319

pair-bonding of, 144, 150, 151, 152, 154, 330 birth control, 187, 315, 341

divorce and, 295,307, 354

"the pill" for, 295

rhythm method of, 315

RU-486 for, 306-7 birth spacing, 70-71, 153-54, 157

ape patterns of, 336

trends in, 299, 300, 303, 336 Bischof, Norbert, 164-65 Black,
Davidson, 236 blackbirds, 64 Blackfoot, 67-68 Blake, William, 23
blended families, 303-4, 310 body embellishment, 46 body hair, 181

body language, 20-27, 28-29, 31-32, 33, 34, 92, 195, 207

chest thrust, 21,24, 25

displacement gestures, 22

of dominance/submission, 21

head toss, 20, 24, 25

intention cues, 28

preening, 26, 92

universality of, 24-25, 29-30

of walk, 26, 27, 46

see also facial expressions body synchrony, 29-31, 34

interactional, 30 Bogart, Humphrey, 161 Bohannan, Paul, 111,303,304
Bolivia, 46, 130 bonding, 48, 58,231,251,315

see also pair-bonding bonobos, see pygmy chimpanzees Borneo, 29-30

Botwin, Carol, 96 Bowlby, John, 166 brain, 22,43, 174,338

amygdala of, 255

Broca's area of, 206-7, 343

conscience and, 255

INDEX

brain (continued)

corpus callosum of, 195

cortex of, 52, 195,206-7,255

gender differences in, 190, 191, 195, 200, 204

hemispheres of, 195

hippocampus of, 255

hypothalamus of, 173, 316, 317

limbic system of, 43, 52, 53, 56,173, 255, 317

reptilian, 52

sizes of, 52, 141, 190, 205-7, 229, 231, 243, 343

wave synchrony of, 31

weights of, 190 Brain, C. K., 228-29 brain, fetal, 230-32, 339-40

cephalo-pelvic disproportion of, 230-31, 232, 346

homosexuality and, 167

testosterone in, 191, 193, 286-87 brain chemistry, 340

of adultery, 172-73

amphetamines in, 53-54, 57, 163, 306

of attachment, 57, 62, 163-64, 165,166, 171,306

detachment and, 171

dopamine in, 53

endorphins in, 57, 163, 165, 166, 255, 306, 338

fetal, 167,191,193,286-87

of infatuation, 51-56, 57, 62, 87, 163, 165,171,306,316,317

of morality, 255

phenylethylamine (PEA) in, 52-56, 57

of pining, 166

rank influenced by, 286-87

of sensation seekers, 172

serotonin in, 53, 287 Brazil, 25,65,76-77,94,116, 266, 321,

325 breast-feeding, 153, 154, 157, 179-80, 335,

336 breasts, 12,46, 175,179-80, 181, 182, 187

nipples of, 180,183 bride price, 71, 108, 110 British Columbia, 253
Broca, Paul, 190, 206 Broca's area, 206-7, 343 Brod, Harry, 204
Bullough, Vern,81 bumblebees, 319-20
Bunn, Henry, 201-2 burials:

Cro-Magnon, 248-49, 285

Neanderthal, 244-45, 246 Burns, George, 84 Bush, George, 115 Buss,

David, 47, 336-37 butterflies, 28 buttocks, 179 Byron, George Gordon,
Lord, 88

Canada, 41, 106, 160,213,253 "candelabra" migration model, 347

Canela, 94 cannibalism, 237 Capellanus, Andreas, 49 Carneiro,
Robert, 77, 285-86 Carroll, Lewis, 60 Carter, Jimmy, 24 cartography,
facial, 313-14 Cashinahua, 65 castoreum, 41 castration anxieties, 271
cats, 21, 31, 36,119,167,172 Caucasus Mountains, 123 cave paintings,
12, 239-42, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248

initiation rituals and, 240-41, 242, 249 caves, 227-30, 244, 345-46

Swartkrans, 203, 228-30, 236, 345 Cayapa, 92

Cayo Santiago Island, 251 celibacy, 82-84, 99-100, 161, 253, 288-89
Celts, 289 Cenozoic era, 123 cephalo-pelvic disproportion, 230-31,
232,

346 ceramic figurines, 247, 283, 348 Cetron, Marvin, 307-8

chameleons, 21

Chance, Michael, 254-55,257 charivari tradition, 324-25 chastity, 80,

253

virginity, 33, 81, 263, 279, 288-89 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 45, 98, 290
cheetahs, 124, 144, 147 Cherlin, Andrew, 354 Cherokee, 49-50 chest
thrust, 21,24, 25 chiefdoms,285,286,352 child birth, 153, 230-233,
234, 346 child custody (at divorce), 328-29

413

children, 59, 72, 102, 108, 137, 192-93,

196,213,219 Cro-Magnon, burials of, 248-49 divorce and, 113-16, 156-

57, 158, 302-3,

328-29 incest taboo and, 249, 250-51 love maps developed by, 45, 316
morality in, 256

play groups of, 157,160, 260-61 self-centeredness of, 256 sexual games
of, 251, 260-61, 267-68 stepparenting of, 159-60, 304 see also families;
infants chimpanzees, 11, 29, 31, 50, 91-92, 119,

126,128,141,148, 242, 298, 331, 332 alpha female of, 220, 222, 224,
308 alpha male of, 221-22, 224 birth spacing of, 336 body language of,
21, 22, 23, 24 brain size of, 52 cigarettes lit by, 229 clitoris of, 183

consortships of, 133,155-56 courtship feeding by, 35, 94 deferential

retreat of, 220 dentistry and doctoring among, 136 dying, 136
estrusof,32,35,92,121,131-32,135,

187 female rank among, 220, 221, 222-23,

224 gathering by, 199 grooming ritual of, 223 group size of, 131, 154
hunting by, 134-35,186,199, 333,

347 incest in, 252 infant, 92, 133

intimidation display of, 220, 222-23 kinship structure of, 234 male
rank among, 220-22, 224 maturational period of, 232 penis of, 177,
178 power struggles of, 219-24 prankish behavior of, 137 pygmy, see
pygmy chimpanzees scavenging by, 333 sexual behavior of, 32-33, 92,
121, 122,

132-33,150,168,177,178,187, 252,

330, 349 smiles of, 23, 24 social alliances of, 220-21, 222, 308

social behavior of, 136-37

testicles of, 178

tools of, 136

war among, 133-34

weapons used by, 135-36 Chin, Pa, 73-74 China, 41, 106, 125, 218, 280,
290, 325

adultery in, 74, 79-80

arranged marriages in, 73-74

emperors' harems in, 66, 71

foot-binding in, 74, 279

fossil remains in, 235, 236-37

infatuation in, 49 Chiricahua, 35 Christianity, 213-14, 241, 242, 279

celibacy advocated by, 82-84, 99-100, 253, 288-89

divorce forbidden by, 83, 100, 101, 106, 289, 290, 324

Reformation of, 290

sacramental marriage in, 100, 106, 288-90 chromosomes, 191, 193,

197-98 civet, 41 cleaner fish, 62 cliff fall hunting, 246 climate change,
122-26, 236

in Europe, 275-76, 278

see also Ice Age clitoridectomy, 92 clitoris, 177,182,183, 185,269

cloning, 62 clothing, 253-54, 309

Cro-Magnon, 248, 249, 254 codfish, 21 Cohen, Ronald, 116 coitus,

40,120-22,153, 252-53

adultery without, 78, 79

ancillary, 91-92
outside of estrus, 129, 340

face-to-face, see face-to-face coitus

foreplay,268,350

menstruation and, 253, 265

mores of, see mores, sexual

during pregnancy, 121, 122, 127, 184, 186,263,340

premarital, 268-69,350

privacy desired for, 127, 133, 253, 349-50

rape, 101,122,252,267,330

during social upheaval, 122, 340

variety desired for, 87-95, 130, 171, 268-69

INDEX

colonialism, 209-11, 213-14

communes, 71-72, 73, 320

commuter marriages, 301, 303, 310

companies:

entrepreneurism vs., 307-8 globalization of, 308

concubines, 74, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 93, 311

Confessions (Saint Augustine), 84

Confucius, 49
conscience, 12, 242, 246, 254-55, 256-58

consortships, 133, 137, 155-56, 330

continual female orgasm, 91

continual sexual receptivity, female, 175, 181,184-87,188

conversation, 216, 310

in courtship, 22, 27-28, 29,314 interactive body synchrony in, 31

cooperative group sharing, 202, 203

copulatory gaze, 21-23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31,32,62,130,309

cordage, 248

corpus callosum, 195

cortex, 52, 195,206-7,255

Cosmopolitan, 85-86

courtesans, 80, 82, 93, 280, 288, 311

courtship, 12,19-36, 54,60,63, 111, 165, 176,186,233,330 attention-

getting phase of, 26-27 body language of, see body language body
synchrony phase of, 29-31, 34 conversation phase of, 22, 27-28, 29,
314 copulatory gaze in, 21-23, 24, 25, 27, 29,

30,31,32,62,130,309 feeding in, 34-35, 94, 267-68, 269, 315 initiation

of, 32-33 messages in, 31-34, 309 music in, 34, 35-36 recognition
phase of, 27 in singles bars, 25-29, 32, 33 touching phase of, 28-29,
30, 309, 314 universal cues in, 24-27, 29-30

couvade, 350

coy look, 20, 24, 25

Creative Explosion, The (Pfeiffer), 240

critical fatness hypothesis, 306-7, 336

crocodiles, 149, 173

Cro-Magnons, 246-50, 258, 260, 261, 266, 272-73 burials of, 248-49,
285 cave paintings of, 239-42, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249

cultural artifacts of, 246, 248-49, 348

dating of, 247, 248

houses of, 247-48, 348

sexual mores and, 249-50, 251, 252, 253, 254,258 cross, symbol of,
241 Crow, 325

cultural determinism, 190, 342 cunnilingus, 265, 322, 350 Cutler,

Winnifred, 42, 43 Czechoslovakia, 192, 276, 348

dancing, 30, 31,42 Dani, 153

Danube River, 281,285 Darwin, Charles, 24-25, 32-33, 59, 102,

128,130,203,313,317

on bipedalism, 148

on gender differences, 189-90, 195, 196, 198

on morality, 254, 256-57

on sexual selection, 176, 177, 180 dating, 245, 348

of Cro-Magnons, 247, 248

of hominids, 126, 140, 144, 206, 331

ofhominoids, 119, 120, 125

of Homo erectus, 229, 232, 235, 237, 345, 346

of Neanderthals, 243, 246 debitage, 200 deer, 21,31,41,274,276

depression, 54 Depression, Great, 295, 354 de Rougemont, Denis, 112
Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to

Sex, The (Darwin), 176 desertion, 13,89,91, 107, 144, 152-54, 165

see also divorce detachment, 163, 164-65, 167, 169-71, 173,174,263

brain chemistry and, 171

pattern of, 169-70

see also attachment De Waal, Franz, 223-24 Diana, Lewis, 76 Dieri,

321 diet:

fat in, 153,306-7,336

of hominids, 129, 145-47, 148, 152,202, 203,206,219,343

of hominoids, 120, 125

415

of Neanderthals, 246 see also gathering; hunting digging sticks, 148,

203, 278, 280 dimorphism, sexual, 176, 335, 346 displacement
gestures, 22 Dissanayake, Ellen, 245-46 division of labor, 235

in farming societies, 199, 200, 203,

207-8,281,284-85 see also gathering; hunting divorce, 12, 13, 54, 55,
63, 74, 79, 98-117,

144,151,156-61,163,165,234,254,

258,270,271,283,324-29, 357-61 age factors in, 112-14, 115, 157,310

annulment vs., 289, 290, 327 birth control and, 295, 307, 354 child
custody at, 328-29 children and, 113-16, 156-57, 158,
302-3 Christian ban on, 83, 100, 101, 106, 289,

290,324 cultural factors in, 98-106, 108-9, 111,

115-16 demographic factors in, 108, 109-10 disruptive effects of, 101,
156-57 economic factors in, 103-7, 108, 158,

293-97, 300, 325-26 in farming societies, 106, 158, 285,

288-90,311 feudal, 289 four-year peak in, 109-12, 115-16,

153-54,234,327,328,358-59,360 Industrial Revolution and, 106-7,

290,

294-95, 309 Islamic, 98-100,108,110,116, 361 legal separations and,

289, 290, 327 modern nomadism and, 293 "no-fault," 86

property settlements in, 302-3, 328-29 rates of, 105, 106, 107, 109,
110, 112,

288,293-97,300,310,353 reasons for, 89, 102, 279, 289, 324 revocable,

110

risk peaks of, 113, 114,116,293,328 secularism and, 293 self-fulfillment

and, 293 social procedures for, 86, 100, 101,

111 statistical patterns of, 109-16, 157-58,

293, 296, 297, 303, 304, 327 trends in, 292-311 trial marriage and,
302

in United States, 105, 107-8, 109,

110-11,112-14,292-311,327,362 see also marriage

"divorce industry," 303

DNA,60,61,63,91,159-60, 161, 165, 234,246,255,317,318,331

Dobu, 325

dogs, 28, 32, 128,172, 276, 349, 350 wild, 144, 150

dolphins, 28, 340

dominance/submission, body language of, 21

dopamine, 53

double standard, sexual, 275-91, 350 for adultery, 79, 81, 82, 85, 89,
93, 279,

311 economic factors in, 282-83, 284, 285,

286 primitive matriarchy vs., 281-84 rank in, 281, 285, 286-87, 288,
298 warfare and, 281, 285-86, 287, 288 see also farming societies,
patriarchal

dowries, 80, 107,354

dreams, 265, 271

Dragon Bone Hill (Zhoukoudian), 2*36-37

drug revolution, 297

Dryden, John, 118

Dusun, 29-30

dyslexia, 191

earthworms, 62 Easterlin, Richard, 296 eccrine glands, 41 economic

factors:

in divorce, 103-7,108,158,160, 293-97, 300,325-26

in love maps, 47
in polygamy, 68, 69, 72, 320-21

in polygyny, 67, 68, 72

in power, 103-4, 210-11, 212, 214-16, 217,218,219,280

in sexual double standard, 282-83, 284, 285, 286 Ecuador, 92 eggs, 61

see also ovulation Egypt, 73, 98

ancient, 249, 279, 280

divorce in, 109,110, 116,361 Ehrhardt, Anke, 56 Eibl-Eibesfeldt,

Irenaus, 20, 23 Ekman, Paul, 25, 313-14

INDEX

Eleanor of Aquitaine, 49

elephants, 36, 51, 136, 139, 144, 150, 201,

237, 340 elephant seals, 176 Eliot, T. S., 292 Ellis, Bruce, 95 Ellis,
Havelock, 38 Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 56 emotions, sexual, 141, 162-74

in adultery, 163, 167, 168, 171-73, 174

of animals, 167, 168-69, 172, 173

brain chemistry of, see brain chemistry

of detachment, 163, 164-65, 167, 169-71

see also attachment; infatuation emperor moths, 41 endocasts, 206-7,

243 endogamy, 108, 348, 349 endorphins, 57,163,165,166, 255, 306,
338 Engels, Friedrich, 128, 282-83, 284 England, 192, 237, 245, 247,
280

Victorian, 190,211,254 English language, 244 entrepreneurism, 307-8

equilibration, 255, 257 Eskimo (Inuit), 78, 79, 153,214-15,216,
219 estrogen, 192, 194, 196,287 estrus, 32, 35, 50-51, 120-22, 151,156,
184-87,315,329,341

of baboons, 121,155

of chimpanzees, 32, 35, 92, 121,131-32, 135,187

coitus outside of, 129, 340

derivation of term, 186-87

of gorillas, 121,126, 127

human loss of, 185-87

induced by infanticide, 160

of orangutans, 121,330

of pygmy chimpanzees, 129, 329

synchrony of, 43 Ethiopia, 41, 140-41,201,229 ethology, 13,20,22,313

Europe, 230, 235, 236, 243, 244, 246, 247, 275-91,345,352

climate change in, 275-76, 278; see also Ice Age

feudal, 78, 289

medieval, 280, 290

see also farming societies, patriarchal Europeans, 73, 253, 324-25

age at menarche of, 351

sexism of, 209-11,213-14

troubadours, 49, 112

evolution, 12, 22,25, 56, 59,329 adaptive radiation in, 125 Darwinian,
see Darwin, Charles inclusive fitness concept in, 63, 317-18 "missing
link" in, 125, 144 natural selection in, 59, 169, 176, 185,
189,199,205,231,255,257,317-18, 338-39, 340 Red Queen hypothesis
of, 60-61 of sexual reproduction, 59-63, 317 see also emotions, sexual;
hominids; hominoids; sexual selection Exaltolide, 42 exogamy, 249-
50, 348 Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, The
(Darwin), 25

Fabre, Jean Henri, 41 face-to-face coitus, 133, 268 of animals, 129,

130,331 sexual selection and, 181, 182, 187, 339 facial expressions, 20,
23-25,28,62,173, 207 cartography of, 313-14 coy look, 20, 24, 25
sequential flirt, 20, 24, 25, 309 smiles, 22, 23-24, 25, 27, 30, 32,
87,137,

309,314 universality of, 24-25, 29-30 families, 72, 76, 98, 155,288,299
baby-boomer, 297 blended, 303-4, 310 communal, 71-72, 73, 320
nuclear, 154, 160, 165,283,284 size of, 70-71, 299, 300, 307, 309, 310;

see also birth spacing violence in, 87, 100, 101, 160, 165, 166,

212,213,265 see also monogamy, pair-bonding,

reproductive strategies Family, The (Chin), 73-74 fantasies, sexual,

205 farming societies, patriarchal, 216, 217,

275-91, 294, 298, 310, 325, 352, 354 adultery in, 79-80, 89, 93, 311
crops of, 276, 278, 284 division of labor in, 281, 284-85 divorce in,
106, 158, 285, 288-90, 311 family size in, 299 local hunter-gatherers'
relationship with,

276-77 permanent monogamy dictated by, 281,

282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 288-91, 293,

296,311

417

plow used in, 79, 106, 158, 278-79, 280, 281,284,285,286

sedentism of, 284, 285, 286, 288 fat, 46, 180, 181

dietary, in ovulation, 153, 306-7, 336 Father, The (Strindberg), 198

fatherhood, 133, 149-52, 155, 157, 334,

335 feeding, courtship, 34-35, 94, 267^68, 269,

315 fellatio, 129,322,350 female-defense polygyny, 150, 153, 319

female essence, 43 female proceptivity, 32-33 feminism, 211, 212, 213,
283, 284, 286,

296 Fertile Crescent, 278 fertility, 42, 81, 179-80, 187,319

adolescent subfertility and, 306-7

infertility vs., 102, 154, 279, 315, 324

see also birth spacing; ovulation; pregnancy feudalism, 78, 289

fidelity, 63-65, 89, 94,161,213

see also adultery figurines, ceramic, 247, 283, 348 Finland, divorce in,
109-10, 358-59 fire, 227-29, 230, 236, 238, 345-46 Fischer, Edward,
50 fish, 21, 31, 36, 62,149,167, 172 Flannery, Kent, 278 flirtation, 20,
24, 25

office, 309 foot-binding, 74, 279 footprints, 241 footprints, fossil, 230

Laetoli, 139-40, 141 Ford, Clellan, 32, 92-93, 321 Fore, 25

foreplay, 268, 350 Fort Jameson Ngoni, 115,325 Fossey, Dian, 126, 127
fossil remains, hominid, 139-41, 144, 205-7,232,245,335,348

at Dragon Bone Hill (Zhoukoudian), 236-37

endocasts of, 206-7, 243

footprints, 139-40, 141,230

1470 skull, 206, 207, 219

at Hadar site, 140-41,335

of Homo erectus, 229, 230, 235, 236-37, 346

at Koobi Fora site, 206-7, 229, 344

at Laetoli site, 139-40, 141,335

at Nariokotomc III site, 229

of Neanderthals, 242, 244-45, 246

nicknames given to, 206

at Olduvai Gorge site, 200-203, 205-6, 219,229,343-44

plant pollen, 244, 245

at Swartkrans cave, 203, 228-30, 236, 345

taphonomy of, 201-2

see also tools foster homes, 304 1470 skull, 206, 207, 219 four-year
itch, 109-12, 114, 116, 154, 171 Fox, Robin, 255, 257 foxes, 173

pair-bonding of, 144, 150, 151-52, 154 Fragrance Foundation, 44

France, 20, 49, 125, 190, 213, 230, 237, 244, 247, 248, 290

cave paintings in, 239-40, 243, 245, 246 Frayser, Suzanne, 318, 321,
324, 348 Frazer, Sir James, 253 "free love," 74, 320

in communes, 71-72, 73, 320 freewill, 14

Freud, Sigmund, 38, 128,162, 208 Frisch, Rose, 336 frogs, 21, 36
Fromm, Erich, 258 Frost, Robert, 144, 284

Gainj, 153
games, sexual, 251, 260-61, 267-68

gametes, 61, 317

gang rape, 267

gardening, 115, 216, 217, 254, 279, 280,

283-84,352 gathering, 103-4, 158, 212, 213, 214, 230, 237,260,281,288

dietary contribution of, 104, 147, 283,

285 by hominids, 194, 196, 198, 199, 200,

203,207-8,219 tools of, 148,203,278,280 see also hunter-gatherers;

hunting gaze, copulatory, 21-23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30,

31,32,62,130,309 gender differences, 12, 13, 189-208 in adultery, 87-

95 in aggression, 189, 196-97, 198, 199, 203,

204,255,287 in brain, 190, 191,195,200,204 chromosomal factors in,

191, 193, 197-98

INDEX

gender differences (continued)

cross-cultural, 196, 197

cultural factors in, 190, 191-92, 193-94, 197

in infants, 192, 194, 197

intelligence and, 189-90, 198

in intimacy, 204-5

in intuition, 195, 198, 199, 203, 342

in jealousy, 168, 169

in love maps, 47

in mathematical abilities, 192-94, 195, 197-98

in motor coordination, 196, 198, 199, 203

in nurturing behavior, 189, 196, 197-98, 199,203,204,205

in odor perception, 42

in parental investment, 178-79, 334

in political ambitions, 286

in relationships, 197, 198

in reproductive strategies, see reproductive strategies

in sexual fantasies, 205

in spatial skills, 192-93, 194, 195, 197-98,199, 203, 204, 205

variation within gender vs., 191, 198

in verbal abilities, 191-92,193, 194, 195, 198,199, 203, 204, 205, 308
gender relations, see double standard,

sexual; power gender roles, 199, 200, 203, 207, 213,

277 genetic factors, 13, 14, 128, 331, 332

chromosomes, 191,193, 197-98

DNA, 60,61, 63,91,159-60,161,165, 234,246,255,317,318,331

inbreeding and, 250-51, 348-49

morality and, 255-57

variety in, 159

see also reproductive strategies genetic repair theory, 317 Germany,
20, 190, 276-77, 290

ancient Teutonic peoples of, 279, 289 gibbons, 150, 168 Gilbert, W. S.,
199 Gilligan, Carol, 197 Gilyak,321 Gimbutas, M. A.,352 Ginzberg, Eli,
298 Givens, David, 25, 28, 29 global empathy, 255-56 globalization,
308 Goldberg, Steven, 286

Gombe Stream Reserve, Tanzania, 131-37,

224,252,333 Goodall, Jane, 11,131,134,252,333 Goodenough, Ward,

318 gorillas, 21, 23, 26, 72, 125-28,137, 298, 331,332

bird-dogging by, 26

birth spacing of, 336

brain size of, 52

estrusof, 121,126, 127

harems of, 72, 126, 127, 150, 176

infatuation in, 50

penis of, 176

sexual behavior of, 121,122, 126-28, 167, 178,330

sexual dimorphism of, 176

silverback male, 126

testicles of, 178 gossip, 76,77,147,212,254,271 grave offerings, 244-45,

246, 248-49, 285 gravitas, 83 Great Britain, 290

colonial, 209-11, 213 Greek language, 63, 71, 186-87 Greeks, ancient,
37, 41, 131, 282, 352
abortion rights of, 351

age at menarche of, 3 51

asceticism of, 82-83

divorce of, 288

marriage of, 82, 279, 280 Gregg, Susan, 276-77 Gregor, Thomas, 260,
266, 270, 271, 272 grief, 166, 170, 171,174 grooming talk, 27-28 group
marriage, 71-72 group size, 246

of chimpanzees, 131, 154

ofhominids, 141,145, 156, 158,336

of pygmy chimpanzees, 129 group switching, 127, 132, 156, 234, 252
guilt, feelings of, 253, 256 Guinness Book of World Records, The, 66
Gururumba, 325

habitats, 118-19, 124, 125, 131, 144-45,

200,247,257 Hadar site, 140-41,335 haddock, 36 Hadza, 105, 146 hair:

beards, 46, 175, 180, 181

body, 181

419

Haldane, J.B.S., 19,317-18 Hall, Edward, 30 Hamilton, Gilbert, 84-85

Hamilton, William D, 318 hand axes, 230, 245 hang flies, 34-35
Hardy, Thomas, 259, 273 harems, 65, 66-68, 69, 73, 88, 152, 161,
319,320

of Chinese emperors, 66, 71

of gorillas, 72, 126, 127, 150, 176

see also polygyny Harris, Marvin, 296 hasham, 99 Hatshepsut, 280
Hawaiian language, 244 hawks, 347

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 86 head toss, 20, 24, 25 Hebrews, 81-82, 83

helpers at the nest, 157 Hepburn, Katharine, 161 herding,
158,216,217,280, 283 Herero, 265, 349 hermaphroditism, 62 Herrick,
Robert, 189 hetaerae, 82 Hidatsa,321 hierarchies, see rank Hindus, 41,
65, 73, 79-80, 101,130 hippocampus, 255 hoe, 79, 278, 279
Hoffenstein, Samuel, 59 holidays, friends vs. family on, 305 Holland,
Arnhem Zoo of, 219-24,

308 Holloway, Ralph, 206 holy water, 242 home bases, 230, 238
homicides, 156, 196

infanticide, 92, 127

spousal, 168 hominids, 125-26,139-61,164,173-74, 199-203, 205-8,

214, 224-26, 227, 252,311,318,333-34,342

adultery and, 88-89, 90-92

anatomical features of, 140, 141, 149, 205-7, 340, 344

Australopithecus afarensis, 140-43, 144, 158,206,355

Australopithecus boisei, 205-6

Australopithecus robustus, 206, 228, 343

bipedalism of, 139-40, 141, 147-49, 153,

156,177,179,341 birth spacing of, 153-54, 157 brain size of, 141,205-7,
343 cooperative group sharing by, 202, 203 dating of, 126, 140,
144,206,331 diet of, 129, 145-47, 148, 152,202,203,

206,219,343 estrus loss in, 185, 187 gathering by, 194, 196, 198, 199,
200,

203,207-8,219 gender differences and, 189, 191, 194,

195,196, 197,198,199, 200, 203, 204,

205, 207-8 group size of, 141, 145, 156, 158, 336 habitats of, 144-45,
200, 206, 257 Homo erectus, see Homo erectus Homo habilis, 206-7,
343-44 hunting by, 135, 145, 194, 196, 198,

199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 207-8, 219,

335 infant, 141, 149, 153-54, 156, 160,164,

187,195,203 jealousy of, 169 kinship and, 235 language and, 206-7
menopause in, 341

morality development and, 255, 257-58 pair-bonding of, 141, 149-61,

164-65,

185,194,233,235,257,336 scavenging by, 145-48, 194, 199, 200,

202, 203, 207-8, 219, 333, 335, 343,

347 sexual selection and, 177, 179, 180, 181,

182,184,185-86,187 size of, 140,206,335 as term, 139, 332 see also

fossil remains, hominid hominoids, 118-38, 145, 149, 153, 199
anatomical features of, 119-20 apes and,119, 120-22,125-37 dating of,
119, 120, 125 diet of, 120, 125 female multiple orgasm of, 184 habitats
of, 118-19, 124 locomotion of, 119, 120 as primal horde, 128-31
ramamorphs, 125 sexual behavior of, 120-22, 127, 130, 131,

133 social behavior of, 134, 135, 136-37 as term, 119,332

INDEX

//omoerecrus, 228-38, 311

altricial infants of, 230-32, 233, 234, 235, 238, 346

anatomical features of, 229

brain size of, 229, 231

cannibalism of, 237

dating of, 229, 232, 235, 237, 345, 346

fire used by, 227-29, 230, 236, 238, 345-46

fossil remains of, 229, 230, 235, 236-37, 346

gathering by, 230, 237

home bases of, 230, 238

hunting by, 228, 230, 236, 237-38, 347

kinship and, 233-35, 238

maturational period of, 232-33, 234, 235, 238

migration of, 235-37, 347

size of, 229, 230, 346

tools of, 229-30, 235, 236, 237, 347 Homo habilis, 206-7, 343-44
Homo sapiens, 239-58, 298, 334, 347

art of, 239-42,245-49,348

morality of, 242, 246, 254-58

neanderthalensis, see Neanderthals

origin of, 247, 347-48

sexual mores of, 246, 249-54, 255, 258

symbolic thinking of, 242, 244-45, 246

see also Cro-Magnons homosexuality, 82, 88, 90, 93, 166-67

of animals, 122, 129, 167,329

fetal brain chemistry and, 167

incidence of, 89 Hopi,35 horses, 72, 124, 144, 173, 201, 237, 247,

335 houses, Cro-Magnon, 247-48, 348 housewives, 82, 93, 280, 281,
294, 295, 296,

298,310,311 housework, allocation of, 217, 310 Howell, Nancy, 104

howler monkeys, 31 Hrdy, Sarah, 91-92 Human Birth: An
Evolutionary Perspective

(Trevathan), 231 Human Relations Area File (HRAF), 216,

326,345 Hume, David, 258 Hungary, 125,237, 290 Hunt, Morton, 85

hunter-gatherers, 13, 88-89, 144, 158, 216, 217, 230, 254, 278, 280,
283-84, 286, 298,352

age at menarche of, 262, 3 51 in ancient Germany, 276-77 birth

spacing of, 70-71, 153-54 children's play groups of, 157,160, 260-61
duration of infancy in, 157, 232 hypergamy and, 300 maturational
period of, 232-33 optimal foraging strategies of, 333-34 see also
gathering; hunting; !Kung Bushmen

hunting, 104, 115, 201, 213, 215, 253, 284 by baboons, 155

big-game, 148, 235, 246, 248, 347 by chimpanzees, 134-35, 186, 199,
333,

347 cliff fall, 246

byhominids, 135, 145, 194, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 207-8,
219, 335 by Homo erectus, 228, 230, 236, 237-38,

347 by Neanderthals, 246 by pygmy chimpanzees, 129

Huysmans, Joris Karl, 41

hyenas, 124, 139, 145, 146, 201, 202, 228

hyoid bone, 243

hypergamy, 300, 337

hypopituitarism, 56, 316

hypothalamus, 173, 316, 317

Ibo, 318

Ice Age, 12,236,243,273-74,275

animals of, 240, 246, 247, 274 Ifugao, 35

Igbo Women's War, 209-11,213-14 immigrant men, 294, 296

impotence, 265, 271,272, 289 In a Different Voice (Gilligan), 197
inbreeding, 250-51, 348-49 Incas, 101

incest, 127,249,252 incest taboo, 154, 249-52, 320, 348, 349

mammals, 126, 127, 132,251-52

cross-cultural universality of, 249

genetic factors in, 250-51

reasons for, 249-50, 252 inclusive fitness, 63, 317-18 India, 49, 71, 106,
116, 125, 196, 230, 280, 290,320,321,325,336

Hindus of, 41, 65, 73, 79-80, 101, 130

suttee in, 279 individualism, divorce and, 293 "individual marriage,"

302

421

Industrial Revolution, divorce and, 106-7,

290, 294-95, 309 infancy, duration of, 141, 153-54, 157, 159,

160,232,234 infanticide, 92, 127

infants, 30, 48, 103, 172, 178, 196, 249, 252,270,299,315,317,338

altricial, see altriciality

baboon,155

breast-feeding of, 153, 154, 157, 179-80, 335,336

chimpanzee, 92, 133

gender differences in, 192, 194, 197

hominid, 141, 149, 153-54, 156, 160, 164,187,195,203

incipient morality in, 255-56

newborn, 41, 231-32, 255, 346

precocial, 335

smiling of, 25

weaning of, 121, 122, 153, 154, 160, 185, 232,233,260

see also children infatuation, 12, 36, 37-58, 72, 73-74, 98-99,
109,120,144, 162, 163-66, 167,173,174,231

brain chemistry of, 51-56, 57, 62, 87, 163,165,171,306,316,317

characteristics of, 38-40

crystallization vs. idealization in, 39

cultural influence on, 55-58

duration of, 56-57, 111, 163

enhanced by barriers, 48, 49, 56, 163

individual variation in experience of, 56

intrusive thinking in, 38-39

love at first sight in, 12, 49-51, 73

love blindness vs., 56

love maps in, 44-47, 49, 55, 316

mystery and, 47-48, 49

pheromones in, 40-44, 49, 55, 181, 186, 315

physical sensations of, 39-40

of romance junkies, 53-54

similarity and, 48, 49

teenage, 261, 263

timing in, 48, 49

see also attachment infertility, 102, 154,279,315,324 infidelity, see

adultery initiation rituals, 240-42, 262

of Australian aborigines, 241-42

cave paintings and, 240-41, 242, 249 insects, 19, 28, 41, 136, 139, 251,
319-20

courtship feeding by, 34-35, 94

pair-bonding of, 149-50

sperm competition and, 177-78 intelligence, 189-90, 198, 229, 262,

346 intention cues, 28 interactional body synchrony, 30 In the
Shadow of Man (Goodall), 11 intimacy, 204-5 intrusive thinking, 38-
39 intuition, 195, 198, 199,203,342 Inuit (Eskimo), 78, 79, 153, 214-15,
216,

219 Iran, 249, 278 Iraq, 244, 278 Iroquois, 282, 325, 344 Islam, 280,
290

divorce in, 98-100, 108, 110, 116, 361

veil mandated by, 92 Ismail, Moulay, the Bloodthirsty, 66 Israel, 278

ancient, 288

kibbutzim of, 47-48, 250-51

Sea of Galilee in, 237 Italy, 75-76, 79, 290

Jankoviak, William, 50 Japan, 20, 25,44,150,196, 218, 280, 290, 325

adultery in, 79-80

double suicide (shin ju) in, 49

marriage in, 73, 115-16 Java, 235, 237

jealousy, 89, 102, 167-69, 249-50, 265, 268, 269,270,321

polygamy as cause of, 67, 70, 108, 128, 168,261,263 Jespersen, Otto,
36 Jesus, 83, 106,289,290 jewelry, 248, 249 Jilimi, 212

Johanson, Donald, 140 Johnson, Samuel, 103 Josephine, Empress of

France, 41 Judaism, 73, 81-82, 83, 92 Jung, Carl, 37 jus primae noctis,
78

Kaingang, 321, 325

Kama Sutra (Vatsya), 49

Kant, Immanuel, 239

Kanuri, 116

Kenya, 196,206-7,229,230, 319,

344 kevutza, 251

INDEX

kibbutzim, Israeli, 47-48, 250-51

marriage in, 48, 251 kin selection, 62-63, 318 Kinsey, Alfred, 14, 85,
87, 90, 93, 322 kinship, 103,106, 233-35, 238, 244, 250, 286

adultery and, 78, 270, 321

associations as, 305, 356

matriliny, 105, 108, 155, 218, 224, 234, 281-83

patriliny,79,210,218,234,283,352

in power, 210, 218

wife lending and, 78

see also incest taboo Kipling, Rudyard, 43 Kipsigis, 319 kissing, 133,
179,221-22,251,265

cross-cultural prevalence of, 130, 350 Kleiman, Devra, 334 Klein,

Donald, 53 Klinefelter^ syndrome, 193 Kofyar, 78-79 Kohler,
Wolfgang, 31 Koobi Fora site, 206-7, 229, 344 Koran, 100, 110 Korea,
73

Kroll, Ellen, 201-2 Kuikuru, 76-77, 182

!Kung Bushmen, 13, 158, 164, 260-66, 319, 333-34

adultery of, 90-91, 260, 261, 263, 264, 265,266

beliefs of, 264-66

birth spacing of, 153

children's sexual games of, 260-61

divorce of, 103-4, 116

economic power among, 103-4, 215, 219

family size of, 299

gathering by, 103-4, 147,260

hunting by, 104,215

infants of, 260, 299

kinship of, 103

marital prospects preferred by, 262

marriages of, 116, 261, 262-64, 265

polygyny of, 261, 262, 263

puberty of, 262

labor force:

immigrant men in, 294, 296 women in, see working women

Laetolisite, 139-40, 141,335

La Juyo cave paintings, 240 Lancaster, Jane, 154 language, 36, 206-7,
249, 322

speech physiology and, 243-44

see also verbal abilities larynx, 243-44

Lascaux cave paintings, 239-40, 248 Lawrence, D. H., 175 Leacock,

Eleanor, 213, 284 Leakev, Louis, 140, 200-201, 206 Leakey, Mary,
140, 200-201, 203, 206 Leakey, Richard, 206 Le Jeune, Paul, 213
leking ground, 33-34, 319 leopards, 147, 202 Lepcha, 130, 153,350
lesbians, 88, 89, 166, 167 Les Trois Freres cave paintings, 240 Lesu,
321 LHRH (luteinizing hormone-releasing

hormone), 316 "Lichtenberg" (Kipling), 43 Liebowitz, Michael, 53-54,

55, 57, 163-64,

166,306 limbic system, 43, 52, 53, 56, 173, 255,

317 lions, 50,144, 146, 147, 150, 153,160,176,

201,202 lips, everted, 175, 179, 181 living together, 110-11,302 lizards,
21, 36

whiptail, parthenogenesis of, 60, 62 lobsters, 21 Locke, John, 11

locomotion, 119, 120

see also bipedalism love, see attachment; infatuation;

pair-bonding Love and Limerence (Tennov), 38 love apple, 42 love at

first sight, 12, 49-51, 73

adaptive function of, 51

in animals, 50-51

cross-cultural, 49-50 love blindness, 56 love maps, 44-47, 49, 55

beauty standards of, 46-47

sexual perversions and, 316 love potions, 42, 50, 306 Lowell, Robert,
162 Lozi,78,79, 325 Lucretius, 128, 292

423
Lucy, 140-43, 144, 158,335

see also horn in ids luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH),

316

McGrew, William, 199 MacLean, Paul, 52 magazines, women's, 295

male attainment, 286 male dominance, 281, 287, 344

power and, 211-14, 216, 217, 224, 255 male-dominance polygyny, 319
male essence, 42-43, 315 mammoths, 240, 246, 274

bones of, in house construction, 247 Mangaians, 50, 325 manuports,

200 MAO, see monoamine oxidase Mardi Gras, 78 marmosets, 64

marriage, 63-74, 77, 83, 84, 86, 87, 90,144,

156,165,198,211,212,234,261, 262-64, 265, 269

age factors in, 82, 108, 262, 295, 296-97, 298,300,301,349,354-55

arranged, 29, 33, 44, 65, 73-74, 98, 115-16,160-61,262,311,350

Christian, 100, 106,288-90

commuter, 301,303,310

constancy in rates of, 298

cross-cultural universality of, 65-66

definitions of, 318

endogamy, 108, 348, 349

exogamy, 249-50, 348

feudal, 78, 289

hypergamy, 300, 337

Islamic, 98-100

kibbutzim, 48, 251

living together vs., 110-11,302

prenuptial agreements for, 302-3

reasons for, 102, 215,216, 324

shared experiences within, 109

social alliances through, 102, 160-61, 250,311

spousal homicide in, 168

stability of, 107-8,157-59

statistical patterns of, 65, 161, 354-55

systems of, 63, 65-74, 318-21; see also monogamy; polygamy

trends in, 292-311

trial, 302, 303,310

in United States, 64, 65, 72, 73, 111, 159, 161,185,292-311,354,355

virginity at, 33, 81, 263, 279, 288-89

"visiting," 301

see also adultery; divorce; remarriage Marriage and Divorce Today, 86

Masai, 140,321 masturbation, 82, 122, 132, 178, 265, 322,

340 matchmaking, 303

mathematical abilities, 192-94, 195, 197-98 matriarchy, 217, 286

definition of, 281

primitive, 281-84, 351-52 matriliny, 105,108, 218, 281-83

of baboons, 155,224,234

definition of, 281 maturation period, 232-33, 234, 235 Maxwell, Mary,
257 Mbuti pygmies, 218 Mead, Margaret, 13, 72, 109, 159, 190, 297,

302, 303, 308, 309 Medici, Catherine de, 27 Mediterranean Sea, 123,
235, 247 Medlpa, 30 Mehinaku, 93, 218, 260, 266-72

adultery of, 268, 269-70, 271

beliefs of, 271-72

children's sexual games of, 267-68

divorce of, 270, 271

infant, 270

marriage of, 269

men's house of, 267

premarital coitus of, 268-69

remarriage of, 270-71 memory, 255

in love maps, 45

mnemonics for, 241

released by odors, 43-44 menarche, age at, 262, 306-7, 351 Mencken,
H. L., 51,54, 179 menopause, 72, 179, 185, 315, 340-41

testosterone unmasked by, 287, 308-9 menstrual blood, 218, 253,

264-65, 271 menstrual cycle, 66, 100, 120-21, 184, 262, 341

coitus and, 129, 253, 265

estrogen and, 192, 194, 196, 287

fine motor coordination linked to, 196

influenced by male essence, 42

synchrony of, 43

verbal abilities linked to, 192, 194

INDEX

Mesopotamia, 80, 279 Mexico, 94, 196 mice, 151

popcorn behavior of, 54 Micmac, 106 Middle Ages, 280, 290

midwifery, 231, 232 migration, human, 235-37, 351

models of, 347-48 "missing link," 125, 144 mnemonics, 241 modesty,
sexual, 99, 253-54 moles, 28 monandry, 63, 64, 69, 128,318

serial, 127 Monell Chemical Senses Center, 42, 315 money, see
economic factors Money, John, 44-45, 56, 57,316 Mongols, 101

monkeys, 31, 54,64,91-92, 119, 120, 122, 134,144,150,172,231,251-

52,287 monoamine oxidase (MAO), 172

inhibitors of, 53-54 monogamy, 12, 63-66, 72-74, 127, 131,

133,150,151,231,258,318,335

age factors in, 157, 159

circumstances conducive to, 157-58, 159

cross-cultural prevalence of, 66, 69

definitions of, 63-64

economic factors in, 158

fidelity and, 63-65, 89, 94, 161, 213; see also adultery

monogyny, 63, 66, 127, 318

as primary reproductive strategy, 66, 69, 72,73-74,320-21

serial, 103, 137, 141,152-61,165,257, 310,335,337

see also monandry; monogamy, permanent; pair-bonding monogamy,

permanent, 116, 157-58, 213

in patriarchal farming societies, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 288-91,
293, 296, 311 monogyny, 63, 66, 127, 318 Montagnais-Naskapi, 213
Montagu, Ashley, 211-12, 231, 295,

339-40 Montaigne, Michel Eyquem de, 47 moose, 51, 319 morality,

242, 246, 254-58

adultery and, 257-58

brain chemistry of, 255

child development of, 256

genetic factors in, 255-57 Moravia, 348

mores, sexual, 165, 246, 249-54, 255, 258, 259-74, 348

about adultery, 75-84, 86-87, 168

of !Kung, 260-66

of Mehinaku, 260, 266-72

sexual modesty in, 99, 253-54

see also taboos Morgan, Lewis Henry, 282, 283, 284 Mormonism, 68
Morocco, 66
Morris, Desmond, 27, 179, 180, 181 Morton, Eugene, 152 motor
coordination, fine vs. gross, 196, 198,

199,203 Muhammad, Prophet of Islam, 99, 100 mule deer, 21

multiple female orgasm, 182-84 Murdock, George Peter, 69, 321, 324,
326 music, 248, 249

in courtship, 34, 35-36 musk, 41 musk deer, 41

Mutterrecht, Das (Bachofen), 281-82 mvths, 112, 217, 241, 249, 270,
282, 283, 352

Nama, 46

Napoleon I, Emperor of France, 41 Nariokotome III site, 229 natural

selection, 59, 169, 176, 185, 189, 199,205,231,255,257,317-18, 338-39,
340 Navajo, 94, 105-6, 108, 302,344

language of, 244 Nayar, 320 Neanderthals, 242-47, 258, 348

anatomical features of, 243-44

art of, 246

brain size of, 243

burials of, 244-45,246

dating of, 243,246

diet of, 246

extinction of, 246-47

fossil remains of, 242, 244-45, 246

hunting by, 246

speech in, 243-44

tools of, 244, 246, 248 needles, bone, 248 negotiating, as female skill,
308

425

neoteny, 181,339-40

Nepal, 70, 192

networking, 221-24, 305,308

"never married" people, 298

New Guinea, 20, 25, 30, 46, 50, 74, 115,

153,325,348 New York Times, 101 Nigeria, 78-79, 116, 209-11,213

nipples, 180, 183

"Noah's ark" migration model, 347-48 nocturnal emissions, 178 "no-

fault" divorce, 86 nomadism, modern, 310-11

divorce and, 293 norepinephrine, 53 Noyes, John Humphrey, 71-72

nuclear family, 154, 160, 165, 283, 284 nuns, 280, 311 Nupe, 94
nuptial gift, 94

nurturing behavior, 189, 196, 197-98, 199, 203, 204, 205

obstetrical dilemma, 231 ocher, colored, 245-46 odor lures, see

pheromones odors, 40-41, 121

memory released by, 43-44

offensive, 44 office sex, 309

Oldowan tools, 200-201,230 Olduvai Gorge site, 105, 200-203, 205-6,

219,229,243-44 Oneida community, 71-72 opportunistic collecting,

134-35, 145-46 opportunistic mating, 132 optimal foraging strategies,
333-34 orangutans, 32, 125,298,319,332

birth spacing of, 336

estrusof, 121,330

sexual behavior of, 122, 150, 330, 331 orgasm, female, 177, 265, 269

in animals, 183-84

continual, 91

fickleness of, 181,184,340

multiple, 182-84

prostitution and, 184 orgasm, male, 91, 182-83

attachment induced by, 183, 340

oxytocin in, 317, 340 Ottoman Empire, 280 "out of Africa" migration
model, 347-48

ovulation, 42, 179, 183,341 dietary fat and, 153, 306-7, 336 signs of,
186 silent, 186-87

oxytocin, 317, 340

Ozzie and Harriet, 300

Pahari,71

pair-bonding, 66, 72, 73, 74, 87, 92, 112, 131,149-61,164-

65,194,233,257, 298,300,327,336,341

of animals, 144, 149-52, 154,334, 335

of birds, 144,150, 151,152, 154

commuter marriages and, 301

cross-cultural pattern of, 114-17

duration of, 141,151-52, 153-54, 157

fatherhood in, 133, 149-52, 155, 157, 334,335

orgasm and, 183-84, 340

special friendships in, 154-56, 165, 177, 182,185,187,235

see also monogamy Pan,131

parasitism hypothesis, 317 parental investment, 178-79, 334 "parental

marriage," 302 parthenogenesis, 60

parturition, 133, 185, 186, 218, 230-32, 329,336,339

cephalo-pelvic disproportion and, 230-31 232, 346

couvadeand, 350 Pascal, Blaise, 40

paternity, 80, 92, 151, 282, 283, 320 patriarchy, 282, 283, 286, 288,
342, 352

see also farming societies, patriarchal patriliny, 79, 210, 218, 234, 283,
352 Paul, Saint, 83

PEA (phenylethylamine), 52-56, 57 penis, 80, 242, 253, 265

size of, 12, 175, 176-78, 180,187

sperm competition and, 177-78 penis envy, 295 penis sheathes, 46

People, 78 perfume, 43-44

Perper, Timothy, 25, 28, 29, 32, 33 perversions, sexual, 82, 316
Pfeiffer, John, 240-41, 242, 249 phenylethylamine (PEA), 52-56, 57
INDEX

pheromones (odor lures), 40-44, 49, 55, 181,186

definition of, 315

female essence, 43

male essence, 42-43, 315

in sweat, 41-43 philandering, see adultery Philippines, 35, 196 pigeons,

21 "pill the," 295 pining, 166, 169, 306 pink-collar jobs, 296 plants,
120, 124, 144,200,214

asexual reproduction of, 60, 62

domestication of, 276-77, 278, 351

fossil pollen of, 244, 245 Playboy, 85

"playboy syndrome," curing of, 306 playgroups, 157, 160,260-61 plow,

79,106,158, 278-79, 280, 281, 284,

285, 286 Plutarch, 227 Poland, 276

political rank, 217, 248, 283, 286-87 polyandry, 63, 69-71, 72, 320-21
polygamy, 66-72, 73, 318-21

cross-cultural prevalence of, 66, 69, 71

definition of, 63

economic factors in, 68, 69, 72, 320-21

jealousy caused by, 67, 70, 108, 128, 168, 261,263

as secondary reproductive strategy, 69, 72, 320-21

see also polyandry; polygynandry, polygyny polygynandry, 71-72

polygyny, 63, 66-68, 72, 127-28, 211, 261, 262,263,289,318-21

cross-cultural prevalence of, 66, 69

divorce and, 108

economic factors in, 67, 68, 72

forms of, 150, 151,153,319-20

incidence of, 69

Islamic, 100

jealousy caused by, 67, 108, 128, 261, 263

Mormon, 68

reasons for, 66

as secondary reproductive strategy, 69, 72, 320-21

sexual dimorphism and, 335 polygyny threshold, 67-68 Ponape, 350

popcorn behavior, of mice, 54

Pope, Alexander, 17, 139

porcupines, 36

porpoises, 3 31

possessive mating, 132

possums, 20

postpartum taboos, 252

Potts, Richard, 202, 203

pouch, gathering, 148, 203

power, 104, 187, 209-26, 257, 279, 286

age factors in, 218, 280, 281

among chimpanzees, 219-24

cross-cultural comparisons of, 213, 216-18,345

cultural factors in, 209-12, 214-19

definition of, 214

economic factors in, 103-4, 210-11, 212, 214-16,217,218,219,280

European sexist influence on, 209-11, 213-14

informal, 210, 216, 217, 218, 223, 280-81,352

male dominance and, 211-14, 216, 217, 224,255,281,287,344

in primitive matriarchy, 281-84

rank and, 212, 216, 217, 219-24, 255, 287

sex appeal in, 218, 219, 281

social alliances for, 214, 215, 220-21, 222

symbolic associations of, 218, 219

types of, 345

see also double standard, sexual precocial infants, 335 preening, 26,
92

pregnancy, 133, 153, 180, 187, 193, 219, 269,335,339-40

coitus during, 121, 122, 127, 184, 186, 263,340

teenage, 306-7 premarital coitus, 268-69, 350 prenuptial agreements,
302-3 Preti, George, 42, 43 primal horde, 128-31,154 primitive
matriarchy, 281-84, 351-52 prolife groups, 306 promiscuity, 131,
161,281-82 property, 33, 70, 303, 31 1,352

in divorce settlements, 302-3, 328-29

private, 282-83

women as, 279, 288

see also economic factors

427

prostitution, 75, 80, 81, 90, 93-94, 311, 322

among animals, 94

orgasm and, 184 Protestants, 290 psychotherapy, 204 puberty, 141,

180, 181, 193, 232, 269

age at menarche and, 262, 306-7, 351

group transfer at, 127, 132, 156,234,252

rituals at, 66-67, 77-78, 240-42, 262, 268,272,350

see also teenagers Puerto Rico, 251

"Pumphouse Gang" baboons, 155 punishment, 249, 350

for adultery, 79-80, 82, 87, 165, 254, 264, 270,279,321,322 pygmy
chimpanzees (bonobos), 22, 128-31, 329

estrusof, 129, 329

group size of, 129

hunting by, 129

sexual behavior of, 121, 129-31, 167, 329, 340 Pyrenees Mountains,
239, 240, 248

ramamorphs, 125 rank, 70, 155,248-49

chiefdoms in, 285, 286, 352

dominance in, 287

influenced by brain chemistry, 286-87

political, 217, 248, 283, 286-87

power and, 212, 216, 217, 219-24, 255, 287

in sexual double standard, 281, 285, 286-87, 288, 298 rape, 101

among animals, 122, 252, 330

gang, 267 Redbook, 85, 302 redocher, 245, 246 Red Queen hypothesis,
60-61 Reformation, 290 regression, 252

remarriage, 74, 83, 103, 104, 115, 144, 270-71,289,290,303,307,309

adaptive reasons for, 336-37

age factors in, 114, 159,325,335, 355

statistical patterns of, 102, 114, 304, 324-25,355-56 "remarriage"

industry, 303 Renaissance, 280

reproductive strategies, 47, 59-74, 77, 137, 141,158-61,174,234,257,271,

317-21,324,346 adultery, 87-93, 94-95,96-97 of animals, 60, 64, 70,
72, 149-52, 318,

319 asexual, 60, 61, 62, 317 cloning, 62

female, 63, 65, 68, 70-71, 72, 88, 89, 90-93,150,159,165,178-79,184,
185,318,320-21 hermaphroditism, 62 jealousy in, 169 kin selection,
62-63, 318 male, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 87-88,
89,93,94,95,150,157,159,165,178, 179,289,318,320-21 parental
investment differences and,

178-79 parthenogenesis, 60 of plants, 60, 62

primary, 66, 69, 72, 73-74, 320-21 secondary, 69, 72, 320-21 sexual,
59-63,317 transsexual metamorphosis, 62 see also adultery; divorce;
genetic factors; marriage; monogamy; polygamy reptilian brain, 52
resource-defense polygyny, 150, 151,

152-53,319 revocable divorces, 110 rhesus monkeys, 54, 122, 251-52

roadrunners, 35 robins, pair-bonding of, 144, 151, 152,

154 Rogers, Susan, 216

Roman Catholic Church, 101, 242, 290, 324 nuns of, 280, 311 romance
junkies, 53-54 Romans, 128,249,352 adultery of, 81, 83, 322 age at
menarche of, 351 divorce of, 107,288,325-26 female, autonomy of,
280, 325-26 language of, 322 Teutonic invasion of, 279, 289 romantic
love, see infatuation Romeo and Juliet effect, 48 royalty, incest taboo
and, 249 RU-486, 306-7 Russia, 41, 73, 109, 237, 248-49, 290, 352

INDEX

Sabelli, Hector, 54-55,306

Sadong, 25

sage grouse, 34, 319

Sahlins, Marshall, 147

Samoa, 20, 35, 325

San Diego Zoo, 22, 130

Sanpoil, 35

Sappho, 37

Sarawak, 25

savannas, 124, 131, 144-45, 247, 331,

346 scavenging, 144

by chimpanzees, 333

by hominids, 145-48, 194, 199, 200, 202, 203,207-

8,219,333,335,343,347 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), 193, 194
Scotland, 78, 336 seals, 150, 176 Sea of Galilee, 237 search polygyny,
150, 320 secularism, divorce and, 293 sedentism, 284, 285, 286, 288
self-fulfillment, divorce and, 293 Semang, 325, 344 semen, 178, 265,
270 sensation seekers, 272 separations, legal, 289, 290, 327 serial
monandry, 127 serial monogamy, 103, 137, 141, 152-61,

165,257,310,335,337 serotonin, 53, 287 service industries, 307 seven-

year itch, 103, 109, 154, 327 sex appeal, 218, 219, 281 sex drive, 91-92,
185, 187, 255, 288

female proceptivity in, 32-33

natural peaks in, 341 sex in the office, 309 sexism, 189-90, 209-14

European, 209-11, 213-14

of male anthropologists, 211-13

see also double standard, sexual sexual arousal, 180, 317 sexual
dimorphism, 176, 335, 346 sexual fantasies, 205 sexual harassment,
309 sexual intercourse, see coitus sexual perversions, 82, 316 sexual
receptivity, continual, 175, 181,

184-87, 188 sexual reproduction, 59-63, 317 sexual revolution, 85, 297
sexual selection, 175-88, 338-39

among animals, 175, 176-78, 183-84

beards in, 175, 180, 181

body hair in, 181

breasts in, 12, 175, 179-80, 181, 182, 187

continual sexual receptivity in, 175, 181, 184-87, 188

estrusloss in, 185-87

everted lips in, 175,179, 181

face-to-face coitus in, 181, 182, 187, 339

female orgasm in, 177, 181, 182-84, 340

intersexual vs. intrasexual, 178-79, 339

penis size in, 12, 175, 176-78, 180, 187 Shakespeare, William, 35, 42,
48, 75, 87,

115,167,297 sharing, cooperative group, 202, 203 sharing clusters, 135

sharks, 347 Shepher, Joseph, 251 Shipman, Pat, 343 shoes, high-
heeled, 27, 46 Shostak, Marjorie, 90, 260, 262, 263, 264 shyness, 172
siamangs, 150, 331 Siberia, 50, 101 Sierra Tarascans, 94 Sikkim, 130,
153,350 silent ovulation, 186-87 Sillen, Andrew, 228 Silverman, Irwin,
193 sin, religious, 81-84, 97 single parents, 264, 270, 303-4, 310
singles, associations and, 305 singles bars, 25-29, 32, 33 Siriono, 46,
130 Sivapithecus, 125 skin, 28, 46

see also touch smiles, 22, 25, 27, 30, 32, 87, 309

nervous social, 24, 137

open, 23-24, 314

simple, 23

upper, 23 Smith, Joseph, 68 Smith, Robert, 178 Smuts, Barbara, 22

snakes, 21 Socrates, 256 Somali, 130

Song of Solomon, 81-82 South Africa, 109, 130

Swartkrans cave in, 203, 228-30, 236, 345

429

Spain, 92, 125,237,247,290

cave paintings in, 239, 240, 243, 246 spatial skills, 192-93, 194, 195,
197-98, 199,

203, 204,205 spatial territories, 27, 309, 314 special friendships, 154-
56, 165, 177, 182,

185,187,235 speech, physiology of, 243-44 sperm, 61, 183 sperm

competition, 177-78 spiders, 31

Spiro, Melford, 250-51 squirrels, 51, 129

Stendhal (Marie Henri Beyle), 40, 57 stepparenting, 159-60, 304

Stevenson, Adlai E., 295 stickleback fish, 31, 167 stinkweed trees, 228
stone caches, 202, 203 storage pits, 247 strawberries, 62 Strindberg,
August, 198 Strum, Shirley, 155 suicide, 50,74,80, 156

double (shin ju), in Japan, 49 Sumeria, 279 surfeit response, 164-65

suttee, 279 swagger, 26

Swartkrans cave, 203, 228-30, 236, 345 swastika, 241 sweat, 41-43,
181

cultural attitudes toward odor of, 44 symbolic thinking, 242, 244-45,

246 Symons, Donald, 88-89, 90, 92, 95, 183,

342 synchrony:
body, 29-31, 34

brain wave, 31

of menstrual cycles, 43

taboos, 74, 79, 86, 242, 249-54, 350

on menstrual blood, 253, 264-65, 271

postpartum, 252

proposed, for office sex, 309

see also incest taboo tabula rasa, 11 Talaqus-Sunna, 100 tamarins, 64

Tanzania, 11, 139-40, 141, 146, 325, 335

Gombe Stream Reserve in, 131-37, 224, 252,333

Olduvai Gorge site in, 105, 200-203, 205-6,219,229,243-44

taphonomy, 201-2 Taurus Mountains, 123 teenagers, 45, 46, 47, 48,
132, 194, 196, 261,263,268-69

genesis of, 12, 232-33, 234, 235, 238

morality codes of, 256

peer approval sought by, 256

personal adornment of, 272-73

pregnancy risk of, 306-7

see also puberty Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, 19, 209 Tennov, Dorothy,
38-40,48, 56-57 terns, 35 testicles, 178 testosterone, 194, 281,288

aggression linked to, 196, 197, 287

in fetal brain chemistry, 191, 193, 286-87

postmenopausal levels of, 287, 308-9

rank linked to, 286-87 Tethys Ocean, 122-23 Teutonic peoples, 279,
289 Thonga, 130

Through the Looking Glass (Carroll), 60 Tibet, 70

Tilson, Ronald, 63-64 Tiv, 50, 116 Tiwi, 66-67, 318-19 Tlingit, 69-70,
325, 344 toads, 21, 149 Toda,321 Toffler, Alvin, 308 Tonga, 46 tools,
146,147, 200-203, 206, 343-44

Acheulean, 230

of chimpanzees, 136

of Cro-Magnons, 248

debitage, 200

embellishment of, 245

of gathering, 148,203,278,280

hand axes, 230, 245

of Homo erectus, 229-30, 235, 236, 237, 347

manuports, 200

of Neanderthals, 244, 246, 248

Oldowan, 200-201, 230

stone caches of, 202, 203 touch, 28-29, 30, 309, 314 trade, 70, 214,
246, 248, 250, 284, 285, 290 transsexual metamorphosis, 62
transvestitism, 82
INDEX

Trevathan, Wenda, 231-32 trial marriages, 302, 303 Tristan and

Iseult, 112 Trobriand Islanders, 325, 344, 350 troubadours, 49, 112
Truk Islanders, 115 Tunnell, Gary, 146, 147, 148 Turkana, Lake, 206,
229, 230 Turkey, 278

Turner's syndrome, 197-98 turtles, 20 Turu, 77-78, 325 Tylor, Edward,

160

Uganda, 347 Ukraine, 247 United Nations, Statistical Office of, 12, 65,

109-16,158,327,328,358-62 United States, 160, 168, 169, 191, 193, 196,

211,217,253,261,271,336,341 adultery in, 64-65, 78, 79, 80, 84-86, 87,

89-90,92,95,172-73 age at menarche in, 351 divorce in, 105, 107-8,

109, 110-11,

112-14,292-311,327,362 homosexuality in, 88, 89, 90, 93 marriage in,

64, 65, 72, 73, 111, 159, 161,

185,292-311,354,355 polygyny in, 68 singles bars in, 25-29, 32, 33 as

superpower, 294 University of Wyoming, 46 urbanism, divorce and,
293

vagina, 177, 178, 179, 183,265

downward tilt of, 182, 339, 340 Vatsya, 49 Venezuela, 109, 115 Venus
figurines, 248

verbal abilities, 191-92, 193, 195, 198, 199, 203, 204, 205, 308

menstrual cycle linked to, 192, 194 vernix caseosa, 232 vervet
monkeys, 287 villages, 210, 276

Cro-Magnon, 247-48, 249, 348

rank in, 285, 286 virginity, 33, 81, 263, 279, 288-89 viruses, 232, 317
"visiting marriage," 301 voice, 30, 180, 181

tones of, 27-28, 197, 309 volcanoes, 124, 126, 139

Voltaire (Francois Marie Arouet), 298 voyeurism, 205

Wales, 237 walk:

in high-heeled shoes, 27, 46

swagger, 26 war, 68, 196,257

among chimpanzees, 133-34

Igbo Women's, 209-11, 213-14

sexual double standard and, 281, 285-86, 287,288 weaning, 121, 122,
153, 154, 160, 185, 232,

233, 260 weapons, 68, 135-36, 148, 196, 228, 248 Weiss, Robert, 169-
71 "well-family industry," 303 West, Mae, 26 Westermarck, Edward,
250 whales, 28, 331, 340, 350 What Is Art For? (Dissanayake), 245
whiptail lizards, 60, 62 Whiting, Beatrice andjohn, 196 Whyte, Martin,
107-8, 212-13, 216-18,

283, 324, 345 wicked Bible, 97 widows, 81, 212, 305

remarriage of, 290, 324-25 wife lending (wife hospitality), 78 Wife of

Bath (Chaucer), 98, 290 Wilde, Oscar, 97, 171 Wittenberger, James,
63-64 wolves, 21,128, 150, 172,347 women, working, see working
women women's intuition, 195, 198, 199, 203,

342 women's magazines, 295 women's movement, 211, 212, 296

women's rights, 210, 282

see also double standard, sexual Women's War, Igbo, 209-11, 213
woodlands, 124, 125, 131,144, H5 working women, 107, 217, 293-311

baby boomers and, 297

birth control and, 307

divorce rates and, 293-97, 300

as historical constant, 298

housework allotment of, 217, 310

hypergamy and, 300

in medieval Europe, 290

in pink-collar jobs, 296

sexual harassment of, 309

trends favorable to, 308-9

431

World War I, 190 World War II, 112 veterans of, 295 Wyoming,
University of, 46

X chromosome, 193, 197-98 Xenophon,280

Yanomamo, 115,153,253-54 Yao, 325

Yapese, 321 Y chromosome, 193 Yoruba, 104-5 Yukaghir, 50

Zagros Mountains, 123

Zaire, 218

Zhoukoudian (Dragon Bone Hill),

236-37 Zuckerman, Marvin, 172

(continued from front flap)

courtship, marriage, adultery, divorce, remarriage, and the sexual
emotions back to their origins on the grasslands of Africa four million
years ago. Women, men, and power, the genesis of teenage, the origin
of human conscience, gender differences in the brain, and many other
aspects of human sexuality take on new meaning as she follows
humankind from caves in Africa through the agricultural revolution
and on into contemporary Western social life. In the last chapter,
Fisher looks at several modern trends and concludes that many are not
new. Instead, these family patterns came across the centuries, up from
primitives who wandered out of Africa millennia ago.

Helen Fisher is research associate in the department of anthropology

at the American Museum of Natural History. Her previous book The
Sex Contract: The Evolution of Human Behavior was a selection of the
Book-of-the-Month Club. For her book, articles, lectures, and TV and
radio appearances, Dr. Fisher received the American Anthropological
Associations Distinguished Service Award in 1985.

Printed in the United States of America