You can listen to the show here.

And here’s the full blurb:

Sex is simple. Or so we’re taught; animals can be male or female. But even the briefest glance at the animal kingdom tells us that this simply isn’t true. Some creatures have only one sex; some have three; some have none at all. Some animals are two sexes at the same time; some flip flop between them when the time is right. When evolution came to solve the problem of procreation, she did it in a myriad of mind-blowing ways.

When it comes to humans, it’s even more complicated – we have this thing called Gender, too. It’s often defined as the social and cultural side of sex, distinct from the biological. But that’s not the full story. Becky Ripley and Emily Knight travel back to the dawn of human culture, and into the tangled depths of our genetic code, to try and unravel why we are the way we are, and why it matters so much that we understand it all properly.

The post Sex/gender episode of NatureBang appeared first on Rewriting The Rules.

So monogamy works for some animals. Doesn’t mean it’s ‘natural’ for us
We cannot resist evolutionary research on monogamy but biology is only part of how humans connect

There has been a good deal of press coverage surrounding a research study that addressed the question of how human monogamy came about, from an evolutionary perspective. This suggested that males in monogamous mammal species remain with female partners to protect their families from other males, who would otherwise kill the young and mate with the females.

This is no doubt an interesting study, as is other recent evolutionary research highlighting how unusual monogamy is across animal species (reported in the book Sex at Dawn). However, more interesting to me is the focus of such research – and the journalists who report it. If we are genuinely interested in human monogamy, I wonder why our main focus is how it evolved in animals.

It seems that this reflects our current cultural preference for internal explanations of human behaviour. We seem drawn to neuroscience and evolutionary biology to address our questions, rather than to the social sciences or philosophy for example. Undoubtedly the ways in which humans evolved, and the ways in which our brains and bodies now function, are part of the picture of how we relate to one another. However, there are clearly many more contributing factors than that. We require a biopsychosocial approach, rather than one that engages with biology alone.

As a researcher I use a biopsychosocial approach to give a fuller picture of human relationships. As a therapist I also find such an approach useful in helping people to make sense of their relationships. People in the therapy room grapple with questions of how to maintain their freedom while in a relationship, how to form loving connections, and how to remain in relationships when they can be so painful. Here, it is helpful to have a sense of the diverse ways people can structure their relationships, and the common human dilemmas around freedom, belonging and craving the approval of others, which pervade such concerns.

In relation to social aspects, when we look back through time and across cultures, we see a diversity of relationships, structures and rules. More societies are polygamous than monogamous, and the forms that polygamy takes vary greatly. In many seemingly monogamous societies, secret non-monogamy and/or serial monogamy are actually the norm.

The basis of western partner relationships has shifted over the past century from pragmatic and economic concerns to an overwhelming emphasis on romantic love. There have been related shifts in living arrangements from extended to nuclear families, and with increasing numbers of people living alone and not having children. Of course the recent extension of marriage to same-sex couples reflects another change which research on male/female relationships alone will struggle to inform. Increasing gender equality is a further shift which has a huge impact on how we now conduct relationships. The internet too raises new questions around what counts as sexual or emotional fidelity. With new technology there has been a proliferation of forms of open non-monogamy: hook-up culture, friends with benefits, monogamish relationships, polyamory, and relationship anarchy, to name but a few.

Turning to psychological elements, we find that people experience their relationships in a diversity of ways, even within one culture or community. Ask people their reasons for getting married, or swinging, or having an affair, and you will get a wide range of responses. For example, some openly non-monogamous people emphasise their individual freedom or hedonistic pleasure; some have political reasons to do with the patriarchal and capitalist history of monogamous marriage; some feel it is an inherent part of their being, akin to a sexual identity; some wish to connect with multiple people, to find a sense of belonging, or to avoid the risks inherent in pressurising one relationship to meet all of their needs.

We need to get beyond our cultural obsession with what is “natural” when it comes to human relationships, and the common assumption that this equates to what is “normal” and also to what is “good”. Instead we should turn our attention to the diversity of ways in which humans connect, and ask ethical questions about how we relate to each other in a world of ever-changing relationship rules.

The post Monogamy isn’t ‘natural’ appeared first on Rewriting The Rules.

The first half of the event focused on the kinds of relationships that take place amongst animals other than humans, and across different historical periods and the various human cultures around the world today. It is interesting that, when trying to answer these kinds of questions, we often try to determine what is ‘natural’ (by looking to other animals) or what is ‘normal’ (by looking across time and culture). We often assume that what is natural or normal must be what is good. But that in itself is worth questioning. Behaviours like taking antibiotics or being kind to animals could be seen as ‘unnatural’, and high levels of self-sacrifice for others or the ability to sing beautifully are ‘abnormal’.

With that note of caution in mind, when we do look across animal species or human societies what we actually find is diversity. The Sexual Nature exhibition itself demonstrates the huge variety of relationship forms which exist amongst animals: from species of bird where many different females mate with the male whose displays are most visually attractive, to the male seahorses who give birth to their young, to the bonobo chimpanzees who use sex as a social activity to develop and reinforce bonds with other male and female chimps. Volker talked about the various forms of polygyny, polyandry, and polygynandry that have existed across the world at various times, often relating to the physical environment that people find themselves in. For example, there are societies where women marry a man’s brothers as well as the man himself, where men have sexual relationships with other men early in life before marrying a woman, where men have more than one wife who take on different roles in relation to work and domestic labour, and where the norm is for people to have ‘trial marriages’ – with someone of the same, or other, gender – by cohabiting for a while before making any legal commitment.

Diversity is also the case when we look at UK society today. The UK is one of the 10-20% of cultures worldwide which are held to be monogamous. However, as I mentioned at the event, statistics on infidelity in marriage of up to 50-60% suggest that we could say that non-monogamy is actually more usual, but that it usually takes the form of secret affairs, rather than the recognised forms of polygamy that exist elsewhere. There are also many forms of open monogamy which are commonly practised, from the ‘new monogamy‘ where couples are – to some extent – open to emotional and sexual commitments with people other than their partners, to forms of swinging and open relationships, to polyamory where people form multiple romantic and sexual relationships. It is more useful to view relationships today as on a continuum of sexual monogamy (from one sexual partner to many) and a continuum of emotional monogamy (from one close intimate person to many). Individuals are negotiating their own relationship rules around monogamy, for example whether they decide whether to remain close to ex-partners, or whether online sexual contact is acceptable.

Returning to the question of what makes a successful relationship, it is clear that the answer to this is ‘different things for different people at different times’. We live at an uncertain time where old rules of relating don’t necessarily apply to the patchwork families and serial relationships that many people are experiencing. However, we remain in a situation where some relationship forms are considered far more acceptable than others, and afforded much more social approval, recognition and protection.

When asked for my prescription for a ‘successful’ relationship I suggested that, on an individual relationship level, they would involve people respecting each others’ values, communicating openly about these (rather than assuming that they are shared), and being open to the inevitable shifts and changes that will occur in relationships over time. On a societal level it is important to recognise the variety of relationships that people are actually experiencing, rather than trying to squeeze everyone into one-size-fits-all models of relationships or family.

Find out more:

You can read more about all of this in my books Rewriting the Rules and Understanding Non-Monogamies.

The post Happily Ever After? Relationship Diversity appeared first on Rewriting The Rules.