According to E. O. Wilson, “all that we can surmise of humankind’s genetic history argues for a more liberal sexual morality, in which sexual practices are to be regarded first as bonding devices and only second as a means for procreation.”15 We couldn’t have said it better. But if human sexuality developed primarily as a bonding mechanism in interdependent bands where paternity certainty was a nonissue, then the standard narrative of human sexual evolution is toast. The anachronistic presumption that women have
*
Real science offers one of the few—if not the only—reliable means of seeing beyond such cultural distortions, which makes it vitally important that we be fearless in rooting out cultural bias in research.
P A R T III The Way We Weren’t
A central theme in our argument is that human sexual behavior is a reflection of both evolved tendencies and social context. Thus, a sense of the day-to-day social world in which human sexual tendencies evolved is essential to understanding them. It’s hard to imagine the communal, cooperative social configurations we’ve described surviving long in the kind of world Hobbes envisioned, characterized by
Having established that prehistoric human life was highly social and decidedly
CHAPTER ELEVEN
“The Wealth of Nature” (Poor?)
“GORDON GEKKO,” in the film
LAURENTI MAGESA,
Economics, “the dismal science,” was dismal right from the start.
On a late autumn afternoon in 1838, what may have been the brightest bolt of illumination ever to flash out of an overcast English sky struck Charles Darwin right upside the head, leaving him stunned by what Richard Dawkins has called “the most powerful idea that has ever occurred to a man.” At the very moment the great insight underlying natural selection came to him, Darwin was reading