A few weeks ago, psychologist Christopher Ryan wrote a CNN article, "Monogamy Unnatural For Our Sexy Species" in which he says that he considers himself "one of four African great apes." As every zoologist knows, one does not argue with a great ape--one simply runs.
However, I couldn't let this article pass without comment. Mr. Ryan has a new book out in which he claims that human beings have been designed by natural selection to seek "extra-pair copulatory partners"—i.e., having sex with someone other than your partner or spouse—and that suppressing these instincts is futile.
What do you think?
Here is my reply, which CNN published today.
I think people are longing for sexual ethics and some guidance, but we're not allowed to look to religion anymore so looking to the apes has become the new religion.
Great article, Wendy! You said it all.
Posted by: Emily | September 02, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Thank you for such a great reply to an absurd, poorly constructed argument! Problem is....there are people who read that trash and believe it. Your response was spot on.
Posted by: Kevin | September 02, 2010 at 01:15 PM
Your article was a joy to read. I'm going through a divorce, because of, among other things, infidelity and it is so nice to read something that doesn't leave me shaking my head thinking "there is little chance to find a loyal man/husband." Loved the mention of the cottage industry of articles justifying male infidelity. Thanks.
Posted by: Anon | September 02, 2010 at 06:44 PM
I came across your lastest article on CNN and I just want to say "awesome".
I commend what you do. Women and Men should be encouraged to a higher standard. Very refreshing, in light of what our culture pushes as acceptable and "natural"
Posted by: JD | September 02, 2010 at 10:10 PM
Your message in CNN.com with this phrase at the end should be printed and handed out at all high schools:
"The best part of being human: the freedom that comes from self-control and the intimacy that can only come with commitment"
How sad that many kids today do not "have" parents that will try to instill in them a nice attitude towards life and above all some self-respect for themselves... Thank You.
Posted by: Roberto | September 02, 2010 at 10:14 PM
Hi Wendy,
I thought your opinion column on CNN was great. Thanks for pushing an alternative viewpoint out there. I'm so tired of reading articles that use comparative psychology as the only basis for understand complex human behaviors. As a psychologist, and a male, I appreciate someone humorously
highlighting the post-hoc and self-serving bias that often infuses such writing about relationships.
Jon
Posted by: Jon | September 02, 2010 at 11:04 PM
According to this article there are two monkeys that are monogamous--the marmoset and the tamarin--so why don't we imitate those monkeys?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/179988.stm
Posted by: Candice | September 03, 2010 at 01:16 PM
Tamarins and marmosets may be monkeys, but they're not our ancestors. The naughty, naughty great apes are.
Posted by: LB | September 03, 2010 at 07:18 PM
Hi Wendy,
I just read your piece about evolutionary history and infidelity. Bravo. I think there is nothing that contributes more to my overall well-being than my monogamous relationship with my wife. Being happy is a good thing.
I have two comments that might be of some interest. I'm currently working on a doctoral candidacy project on human nature and normativity. So, I couldn't resist.
First, the leap from the descriptive to the normative that your interlocutors make is, frankly, bizarre, given their naturalistic commitments. If one thinks nature is the product of a closed system operating according to natural selection and random mutation, there is no reason to think the normative can be found within that blind process itself. I take it this is why many utilitarians think their moral theory is the only plausible one in a world after Darwin. All of morality is on the descriptive side. While an examination of our evolutionary history can help us understand our tendencies, there is no reason, given naturalism, to think such an examination could ever justify them.
Second, there is a group of philosophers, who generally are not naturalists, who think nature can be the source of normative significance. These are, of course, natural law theorists. But, I know of no one in that camp who would endorse the silly inference made by your interlocutors--that we can read normativity off of nature in some simplistic and straightforward way. They will say, rather, that human nature is the source of an objective list of goods that fulfill this nature. However, your interlocutors won't be happy here either, since a monogamous relationship is agreed upon to be one of the conditions of a flourishing human life.
Thanks for all you do!
Ryan
Posted by: Ryan | September 06, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Chimpanzees share 96% of our DNA, true. But mice share 92%, and that's pretty close; so at what point are we supposed to learn from an animal's behavior? These evolutionary scientists who justify infidelity draw the line at 96%, then the ape's sexual behavior is somehow normative. But someone could just as easily say that a mice's behavior should be normative, too, because they share almost as much of our DNA. Maybe we should be sitting home eating cheese all day instead of talking, blogging, and driving around in cars.
I think the bottom line is, if they're not human we shouldn't be looking to them to teach us an ethics of sexual behavior. Even among humans, we don't believe that just because many men have raped women throughout history, that it somehow makes rape right or even "normal." So if we can't derive a sexual ethics from the frequency of a particular act among humans, then in my opinion, we are even more far afield when we look to the apes.
Posted by: Wendy | September 06, 2010 at 10:26 AM
Yes, what you all said.
And LB is right about who is our recent ancestors, but aren't they all descended from a common origin? If you trace it far back enough, doesn't that bring us back to amoebas?
Posted by: Candice | September 06, 2010 at 12:05 PM
Hey Wendy this is your fan from Miami. I loved how your reply pointed out the horrible inconsistencies and fallacies of the original poster. Self-control is indeed the path for a better life.Keep those pretty eyes open for future "science truths"
Posted by: Luci | September 10, 2010 at 03:02 PM
Well I don't agree.
You saying that "...anyone who buys this "science" is missing out on the best parts of being human: the freedom that comes from self-control and the intimacy that can only come with commitment."
Is like saying the only way to be is heterosexual.
Different folks have different needs and wants, it is fundamentally wrong to deny that. So while it may not be for you. Monogamy is not for many.
Posted by: Torstan | April 19, 2012 at 03:31 PM