Have sex before marriage!

A very typical American feminist sort of piece.

Most adult human beings naturally desire sex. And despite the rightwing emphasis on concepts like \”purity\”, having sex does not actually make you a dirty or \”impure\” person.

She\’s missing the entire foundation of this female \”purity\” thing. It\’s a game theory thing about genes.

Just for the record, sex is indeed fun. I\’m not married and I\’m not a virgin. And no, I\’ve no religious beliefs that lead me to saying that consenting adults need a licence before they make the two backed beast.

But I do get a tad hot under the collar when those who would enlighten us on this subject miss the underlying currents of why society was like that.

Not all that long ago, certainly not much more than a generation ago, a man did not really know who was the father of \”his\” children. DNA testing really is a relatively new creation. Thus paternity was implied: if the woman who carried the child had only had sex with him then the child was indeed his. And virginity was proof of this concept (despite the obvious possibility of other partners after that virginity had been breached), that there were no other possible fathers.

Given that the point and purpose of this Darwinian life is to pass on genes to another generation this is really one of the most basic drives of a male human being. To ensure that those children he\’s expending his resources on really are his. That he\’s not raising cuckoos in the nest he\’s paying for.

Given this, this very basic fact that underlies much of the sexual dance, I think it\’s absolutely bloody amazing how far we\’ve come in those few short decades since the pill, legal abortion and DNA testing. Looking out at the world around us, the mix and match attitude people have to step children, the general agreement that sauce for goose is for gander etc, I am, as I say, quite amazed at how much those attitudes wired into society for tens of thousands, if not millions, of years have really rather just disappeared.

Indeed, I would say that what\’s happened to society about female sex and female sexuality in the past 50 years is proof perfect that we\’re a lot less caught by evolutionary biology than many seem to think. But the one thing I\’m not at all surprised about is that there is still this concept of female \”purity\” in a way that there isn\’t about male. Because while ev psych isn\’t, obviously, everything, it is still something.

 

21 thoughts on “Have sex before marriage!”

  1. They are still insisting despite all the evidence, that genes mean nothing. Feminists would do their cause a big favour if they understood that we have to deal with hardwired issues.

  2. Tim, you seem to imply that technology has driven the change in attitudes. But if that was true attitudes would have changed everywhere the technology is available.

  3. Consider the house sparrow. Mr. Sparrow works himself into a frazzle keeping Ms. Sparrow to himself to ensure that the eggs in the basket are his. Ms. Sparrow takes every opportunity to sneak away for a bit on the side with several swains to ensure that the genetic bank is as diverse as possible. Methinks those feminists are more in touch with their animal side than they’d like to be seen to be.

  4. “To ensure that those children he’s expending his resources on really are his.”

    Of course, if they’re the government’s resources, who cares?

  5. Not sure that your ev psych take on marriage really stands up – it’s seems more like a ‘just so’ story that that field is very prone too, without any clear evidence.

    Based on the size of human bollocks, we fall between chimpanzees (total sluts) and gorillas (paragons of morality) and this seems a much more accurate description of our behaviour.

    http://bigthink.com/ideas/20713

  6. So cuckolding is now more likely to be detected, if rather less likely to actually happen.

    Which means you’re right, that lack of female virginity on the wedding night is no longer seen as a big deal, but the same development (reliable barrier contraception) also renders female infidelity after the wedding night almost irrelevant. And I don’t think we are quite there yet as a society.

    She still misses the fucking point though. You wouldn’t marry someone you hadn’t had sex with for the same reason you wouldn’t buy a car you hadn’t given a test drive.

  7. They are still insisting despite all the evidence, that genes mean nothing. Feminists would do their cause a big favour if they understood that we have to deal with hardwired issues.

    The term for this is ‘cognitive-behavioural creationism’, the belief that human social behaviours emerged, ex-nihilo, without any reference to our evolutionary past.

    That said, Tim is incorrect in suggesting that the attitudes may have been wired into us for millions of years. Tens of thousands is likely as it does appear that the transition from living in isolated family groups to the formation of tribal groups occurred somewhere around 70-100,000 years ago, although there is still some question as to the extent to which formal marriage customs existed prior to the agrarian revolution.

    As for technology driving the change, this is undoubtedly true but its not DNA testing that’s driven the change but the ready availability of reasonably reliable contraception that’s the key innovation.

  8. “I’m not married”

    I thought there was a Mrs Worstall

    Tim adds: There is a lady who is often referred to as such and has been for a couple of decades. But no ring or papers.

  9. And here’s a thought for you family men out there…

    Teh conservative estimate is that 10% of men out there are raising kids that aren’t actually theirs…

    Hence that recent court case that ruled trhat post divorce disocvering your kids aren’t realy your kids doesn’t get you out of paying child support…

    The feminists get verything, the men get screwqed over as usual. And yet thye whinge about gender disparity is defeaning…

  10. blokeinfrance,

    But if that was true attitudes would have changed everywhere the technology is available.</i

    There’s always going to be fruitcakes, whether that’s the Purity Ring advocates or the people from NEF who think we should all be growing our own food and creating our own entertainment.

    Both groups are loud, attract a lot of attention in the media and represent almost no-one in their countries.

  11. Teh conservative estimate is that 10% of men out there are raising kids that aren’t actually theirs…

    This, by the way, matches a long-term study, correlating surnames with gene markers carried on the Y chromosome. It looks like 10% of men have been raising someone else’s kids pretty much for ever.

  12. Marx’s “on the origin of property, family and state” is a actually pretty good on this topic. essentially arguing that a commie society is impossible whilst monogamy exists. I often mention to people who claim to be socialists that I’ll share my salary with them if they let me fuck there wife. they never seem to keen on the idea

  13. JamesV – “Which means you’re right, that lack of female virginity on the wedding night is no longer seen as a big deal”

    Men do not respond to cheating on a rational level. It is an angry gut instinct. But that said, culturally we insist that female virginity on the wedding night is no big deal, but our brains, male and female both, seem to be doing some thing else. The chances of divorce are directly related to the number of previous partners. Off hand it is something like 75% if the woman is a virgin and then it falls to below 50% for one prior sexual relationship and keeps falling.

    Which I would tend to think is a result of both male and female responses – men may be less trusting, but women also care less. The first is still remembered in a way the second is not, and the more sexual relationships she has had, the less special any one of them will be.

    “She still misses the fucking point though. You wouldn’t marry someone you hadn’t had sex with for the same reason you wouldn’t buy a car you hadn’t given a test drive.”

    Yes, I think you would. Or at least a lot of people would. A lot of people do. Such marriages tend to be more successful although whether that is due to genetics or culture no one can say.

  14. You wouldn’t marry someone you hadn’t had sex with for the same reason you wouldn’t buy a car you hadn’t given a test drive.

    Hmm, I suppose I wouldn’t, but not because I was worried the sex would be bad (if you’re keen enough on each other to marry them it wouldn’t be) but because of the message in their turning me down.

  15. It is quite surprising what you all have been made to believe over the years.
    Still as you all don’t breed enough – then you are done for one way or another.
    And the breeders will probably move in. And take over.

  16. So Much For Subtlety

    PaulB – “Hmm, I suppose I wouldn’t, but not because I was worried the sex would be bad (if you’re keen enough on each other to marry them it wouldn’t be) but because of the message in their turning me down.”

    It depends on how you are turned down. For a perfectly polite and civil refusal, well, I don’t think I have ever found a man who thought that was a turn off.

  17. Turns out women who can provide for themselves stop looking for providers.

    I used to make this point to various tarts from the former USSR who would complain that British women don’t dress like hookers and “don’t know how to take care of a man”. I used to point out that a girl on £50k per year with her own apartment in London and an Audi TT doesn’t need to tart herself up and hang about seedy bars trying to pick up elderly married men.

  18. So Much For Subtlety

    Tim Newman – “I used to point out that a girl on £50k per year with her own apartment in London and an Audi TT doesn’t need to tart herself up and hang about seedy bars trying to pick up elderly married men.”

    That depends how much she likes cats. Or Turkish bar tenders and Kenyan beach boys I suppose. Need is an interesting word in that sentence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *