Hominid Promiscuity and the Sexual Life of Proto-Savages: Did Australopithecus Swing?

Abstract

The evolutionary history and significance of human sexuality hold a continuing interest for anthropologists and others. Among those who have made suggestions concerning the sexual life of our ancestors and its ramifications for humans today are Freud (1918), Morris (1967), Sherfey (1972), Spuhler (1979), and Symons (1979). Some of these writers are more serious than others (as might be expected from the nature of the topic, of Western reading habits, and of the Western economy). For every hypothesis offered at any level of rigor, however, there is a willing and able critic. Comments on past speculations include Kroeber's (1920) response to Freud and his horde and Geertz's (1980) response to Symons and his sociosexology. Unfortunately, there is little direct evidence to suggest the sexual behavior and sexual response of our hominid ancestors. It is very difficult to predict soft-tissue sexual response from fossilized skeletal material. Moreover, studies of human sexual response are in their infancy and culture-bound (Katchadorian 1979), while studies of nonhuman primate sexual response are few and usually confined to the laboratory (Mitchell 1979). Such problems are underlined in Lancaster's (1979) careful review of sexual behavior and human evolution. Most researchers, in any case, have ignored primate sexual response per se in favor of studying sexual relations. Studies of mating patterns and their ramifications for sexual dimorphism or demography are much more popular than are studies of response (Alexander et al. 1979, Martin 1980, Lovejoy 1981). Yet it is clear that the fundamental basis of mating behavior among primates is the individual's self-rewarding sexual response. Strictly speaking, copulation for procreation can be done simply, similarly, and with a minimum of fuss. The completely unnecessary, yet very large, range of primate mount postures suggests that a certain amount of play, learning, and reward is involved in primate copulation (for a macaque Kama Sutra, see Chevalier-Skolnikoff 1974 or Hanby 1976; for a human version, see Comfort 1972). Recent laboratory studies of primate sexual response (reviewed by Lancaster 1979) are identifying the nature of this reward. Social and ecological factors mediate primate sexual behavior, but without some kind of sexual response by at least one of the parties involved there would be no primate mating behavior at any level worth discussion. It is possible that we have underestimated the importance of the orgasm as positive reinforcement for primate behavior. Our prejudice may have something to do with our unconscious Western attitudes toward sexual behavior in general. M & M's are a good way to reinforce anthropoid behavior, but we should be aware that an orgasm is better and has been available a lot longer. Speculations on sexual response and human evolution are important and useful because they can stimulate thought and discussion on a topic central to primate experience. Although the danger of public misunderstanding is real, letting the matter of sex rear its ugly head in anthropology is necessary if anthropologists would claim to study humans and human nature (Marshall and Suggs 1971).