A couple of weeks ago I reviewed the excellent book, Sex at Dawn. I loved Sex at Dawn and really think everyone should read it. But I ended my review with a word of caution/concern — and here it is explained.
At its heart Sex at Dawn is science book. Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá outline a vast array of scientific evidence to back up their argument that our sexual history is based on polyamory, not monogamy. But Sex at Dawn also presents a political and moral argument as well. Ryan and Jethá not only talk about the biology of our sexuality, but also make a moral case for the expansion of polyamorous and monogamish relationships in our society. In fact the book dedicates an entire chapter at the end outlining polyamorous movements where they reference authors such as Janet Hardy, Dossie Easton, Dan Savage and more.
I don’t have a problem with this. I think this is a moral argument we should be making. Yet, I am concerned that Sex at Dawn makes this a biologically deterministic argument. We should all be polyamorous because we are “born this way.”
This is the basic thrust of the book. It is heavily focused on biological evidence towards polyamorous relationships, using anthropological and archaeological evidence to then back up the biological claims. I laid out some of the arguments in my review last week, and there are heaps more if you read the book. .
As I am concerned this biological and anthropological evidence is pretty strong. But I am concerned they, and in turn many in the polyamory movement, are relying too heavily on this evidence.
This reminds me a lot of the gay movement. Many lesbian and gay activists have taken on the “we are born this way” mantra; the idea that our society should accept homosexuality because it is just in our genes. There is nothing we can do about it. But as I have argued in the past this argument has stopped us from making a far more convincing argument: that homosexuality should be accepted simply because there is nothing wrong with it.
This is what I fear the biological determinism of Sex at Dawn could lead to. It is an argument that we should all be polyamorous because that is what we are born to do: we should be polyamorous because we cannot escape our biology. This worries me for a few reasons.
Firstly, it ignores the fact that humans have been willing and able to make many active decisions to reject our ‘nature’ for many many thousands of years now. Just look at where we live. We no longer live “natural lives”. In fact, as Ryan and Jethá argue, our bodies are able to adapt to what has often been considered unnatural events — adapting to be able to consume lactose for example. We at experts at destroying our nature and then adapting to unnatural behaviours. Why not be able to do this with sex?
Leading on from this, a biological deterministic approach deny the opportunity for people to make active choices about their sexuality — whether it to be polyamorous or monogamous. I for example have made a very active choice to be polyamorous and I am proud of that choice. That is important to acknowledge. In a society where heterosexual monogamy reigns we have to celebrate the others who have the bravery to make active choices to live outside of this norm — just as well celebrate those who decide to stick with the norms. We must celebrate sexual diversity — something that biological determinism fails to do. Biological determinism just puts us all into little boxes — we are all born this way and just have to deal with it.
Finally, a biologically deterministic approach opens up the potential for continued discrimination for those who make active choices that aren’t scientifically “natural”. I suspect there is nothing natural for example to the use of whips, chains and ropes in sexual activity, just as there is nothing natural to most of our methods of contraception. But that doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with them. These are active sexual choices that people are making and ones we should be celebrating, not ones we should be searching for natural causes of.
And here is the crunch of the matter. Our acceptance of sexual activity should not be based on biology but rather on the measure of ‘harm’. We should not be asking ‘is that act natural’ but rather ‘is that act harmful?’. If the answer to that question is yes then we can have an issue with it, but if not we should leave it alone. Of course harm is subjective and different for many people. We cannot classify it in any stringent way. But it is the only way we can judge sexual practices.
Now, I suspect that if I were to put this to Ryan and Jethá they would probably agree. That is at least what I’ve gathered from what I have read from them so far. Also, this shouldn’t take away from the awesomeness of this book. I still give it five stars and think everyone should read it. But it is something we need to be wary of. If we are going to promote polyamory, or any other sexual choices, we need to do so for radical and moral reasons, not rely on biological determinism.