Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

What does female sexuality tell us about evolution and pre-historic sex?

115 replies

Ava5 · 08/05/2017 16:37

The fact that it's so complex and responsive to patient, fear-free stimulation and so easily hurt by the wrong kind of handling? Women's bodies can be played like violins by a skilled partner: we have clits, we're sexual from head to toe if properly caressed and there're the multiple orgasms. All this seems like a total evolutionary waste if Homo Sapiens have always primarily engaged in the rapey patriarchal model of sex.

Is it all just a carry-over from our bonobo DNA? Is it supposed to facilitate pair bonding (maybe the 2nd trimester horniness is part of this)? It also all seems really excessive if it was all just intended for making babies. Just musing here.

OP posts:
SomeDyke · 09/05/2017 18:59

I was thinking about this, and watching our cat. Sexual from head to toe isn't quite sex, we are sensual from head to toe, and kissing related (possibly) to mother to baby food passing. Except chimps kiss as well as I recall, so seems general touching/grooming/pleasurable touching, and even sexual stimulation and orgasm for females, I think that is common amongst primates (I remember reading a paper about female orgasm amongst primates, and just got rather perturbed at what some experimenters got up to! Ditto those who went for sexual stimulation of female mice).

Anyway, look at a cat on cat mint. Obviously stimulates something sexual, the whole squat on the cat-nip toy and whisk your tail to the side shows that. Except is female kitty 'orgasm' nice (penile spines I think, stimulates ovulation AND kitties can have multiple fathers in one litter so some sperm competition going on there!).

Anyway, I think it was Dr Tatianas Sex Advice to all creation:
www.drtatiana.com/
that really engaged me.

Anyway, I think I need to read this book as well:
The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution
By Elisabeth Anne Lloyd

To get back to the original question -- humans are complicated. We have all the basic bits and bobs and responses that we share with chimps and bonobos and other mammals and so on. But we have the things that seem uniquely human, like rapey patriarchal sex and rape itself? I blame it on our big brains and on males, where you put the same blame for the patriarchy. Ditto the fact that female sexuality (and indeed the female orgasm and how females are supposed to respond) is seen as some great puzzle. That enjoying sex for females went from natural, to unnatural, to natural again, that we worried about not just about orgasm but the 'wrong' type. That it is only very recently that the full anatomy of the clitoris has been made publicaly and engagingly available:
www.sophiawallace.com/clitrodeo
Big brains equals more complicated culture equals male opportunity to think up the patriarchy. And mess up sexuality (as well as a whole load of other stuff!). Pre-patriarchal culture, I don't know what sex would have been like then, perhaps we would have been more like bonobos (penile fencing anyone? Smile)...................

Elendon · 09/05/2017 19:02

It's like,you know, women didn't have brains. And it was all the men. History, written that is, tells us very little about women's achievements.

Elendon · 09/05/2017 19:09

It's almost as if women were stupid to have sex with men in order to procreate because it mean't their obvious death (or something). Women did understand cycles and babies were gestated for less time and smaller. Biologically, we, male and female humans are mammals. In the main, we will reproduce, but there will be anomalies.

QuietCorday · 09/05/2017 19:26

I always think there's something in the Roman reports of Britons originally engaging in polyandry.

This seems to make a lot of sense to me, especially when you consider the group work involved in hunting etc, and the need to protect pregnant/nursing females and their young. It just seems obvious that you would need more adult males than adult females, which then, of course, requires sexual access is either shared or prohibited for some males.

And it's not too much of a leap to then see how the origins of the patriarchy may have come to pass, depending on how a group dealt with that problem.

SylviaPoe · 09/05/2017 21:07

At the time of the Roman Invasion, the Britons had been agriculturalists for thousands of years, not hunters.

It is not at all obvious to me that any kind of society needs more males than females.

Also, we're talking here about the time of Boudicca!

Elendon · 10/05/2017 09:03

Also by the time of the Roman invasion, the Celts were in the ascendancy and they had an egalitarian system, rather than the Roman patriarchal system, their history is left to us not in words but in the burials and the craft. The Romans are not pre history, and who could forget that famous misogynist, Suetonius.

runloganrun101 · 10/05/2017 11:35

Most societies prior to the rise of Biblical religions were female centric. Women can't have bastards or have their maternity questioned, and so wealth was often passed down the female line and women often had multiple husbands. Can see this in Indian, African, and Middle-Eastern history.

SomeDyke · 10/05/2017 17:09

"It is not at all obvious to me that any kind of society needs more males than females. "
The sex (birth) ratio is apparently the oldest argument in evolutionary biology!
The male humans being protecting argument seems spurious to me. After all, unlike many others primates, humans are quite weedy. Male humans don't have the size and snazzy hair-style of silverback gorillas. They don't have the surprising blue eyelids and monstrous canines of baboons, or the large canines of even male chimps. Male humans, in their untoothy, relatively unfurry, declawed nakedness seem naturally very unsuited to repel anything! Then we have the relatively small size difference between male and female humans compared to other apes. Given the SIZE of human babies, and their inability to grasp fur and hang on like monkeys and apes, they seem uniquely vulnerable as well. If human females were so weedy, they couldn't carry a baby that can't hang on for itself.

So, given the naturally unprepared state of human males (no big teeth, no scary erectile mane or imposing roar, or anything much frankly), and the fact that human females already have to carry baby, I think that even the weak and feeble human females could organize themselves in some safer shelter, and wield a stick to defend themselves if required. Else we'd have all died out as we waited for primitive man to finally work out how to defend us all now his imposing canines seem to have disappeared, whilst the laydees cowered in his shadow...............

The mighty hunter and protector myth seems a bit feeble once you realise how feeble all humans are compared to our ape cousins. So either our imposing brains and social organisation make up for our lack of teeth, claws, roars and muscles for all humans, or they don't! In which case, tool use, smarts, and social organisation better work for human females looking after the sprogs as well as for the mighty hunter who has buggered-off trying to run down a gazelle yet again..............

TeiTetua · 10/05/2017 19:01

You can say "weedy" but all of human skill is in "either our imposing brains and social organisation make up for our lack of teeth, claws, roars and muscles". Even one person armed with a spear or a club is dangerous, let alone a whole gang with weapons and the ability to make complex plans and communicate by voice. No wonder we've swept the world.

Somehow wielding weapons is considered men's work everywhere in the world, though. Even if that doesn't absolutely have to be true.

QuentinSummers · 10/05/2017 19:17

We have hidden ovulation. If women didn't want to have sex then a lot of them wouldn't have sex, assuming the majority of men historically were like men now and didn't want to force them.
Something that would make a woman want sex would increase the chances of pregnancy and therefore increase the chance of that woman passing on her DNA. Enter the female orgasm.

I've linked this before but it's interesting
discovermagazine.com/1993/sep/sexandthefemalea262

FellOutOfBed2wice · 10/05/2017 19:31

Just wanted to say that I can contribute nothing to this, but I'm finding it fascinating. Thanks all!

SomeDyke · 10/05/2017 20:26

"Somehow wielding weapons is considered men's work everywhere in the world, though."

Because until very recently, it was assumed that men would have wielded weapons/fought/hunted the mighty mammoth, because that was what men were for. Except, in hunter gatherer societies AFAIK, women do wield weapons in that they use bows to hunt small game (a bow is certainly a weapon, or can be used as such), women use digging sticks to dig up tubers (hard work, and a considerable resource). Big pointy sticks are certainly a weapon! They use knives and rocks and heavy stuff to cut and process plants and nuts. They can certainly use knives to butcher flesh. And so on and so on. And all of those things (bows, big pointy sticks, knives, rocks) are certainly capable of being used as fairly efficient weapons.

I bet that even if early women were restricted to small game and gathering because of having to carry and care for babies and small children, I bet that if a predator had threatened them and their kids, they would certainly have had the tools to use as weapons (bows, rocks, big pointy sticks), and the motivation to use them to defend them and theirs!

I guess my point really is that women must have done all these things, because they'd have not got far in terms of protecting the young and finding enough food for everyone if they'd had to rely on males to do all the defending! Neither of us, males or females, has natural weapons any more, and we both have the same brains and the same smarts and the same clever hands. It was only with the rise of patriarchy that they took the tools and weapons out of female hands and said, you can't do this, that's a man thing. So now when scientists look back, until recently they just didn't assume women did any of that stuff. When they looked at contemporary societies they either didn't ask the right questions, or ignored what they actually saw, because they assumed they knew the answer.

Hence a whole range of museum displays where you only ever seem to see males producing stone tools, or throwing spears. And a fairly recent New Scientist illustration they should have been thoroughly ashamed of where the only ancient female appeared to be messing with her hair, whilst the men did everything else.

I don't believe it. Females certainly, even if tasks were divided by sex, would have needed to use various stone scrapers, knives etc. Given how often stone tools need retouching, would it have been efficient or feasible if she'd have to wait for man the tool-maker to come and sharpen her favourite kitchen knife when he got back from the hunt? Or would she have just done it herself?

And then I found this contemporary account:
Woman the Toolmaker: Hideworking and Stone Tool Use in Konso, Ethiopia (Archaeological Methods & Practice) Hardcover – 12 Apr 2016

Which says:
"Woman the Toolmaker portrays the remarkable lives of a group of Konso hide workers from southern Ethiopia who may be the last people in the world to make and use flaked stone tools on a regular basis. Unlike the “Man the Toolmaker” stereotype, virtually all of the Konso hide workers are women who as young girls learn flintknapping skills from their mothers or other female relatives. The complete life cycle of making and using flaked stone artifacts is documented in this ethnoarchaeological portrait of Konso women scraping hides to produce soft leather products for bedding, bags, drums, and even ritual clothing. The hide workers use quartz, quartz crystal, chalcedony, and chert collected from dry river beds, eroding hillsides, and abandoned hideworker households to manufacture scrapers from cores by the direct percussion and bipolar techniques. Using a gum-like resin obtained from local trees, the scrapers are secured in the open haft of a wooden handle. "

And a recent paper that references this says:
" Archaeologists continue to describe Stone Age women as home bound and their lithic technologies as unskilled, expedient, and of low quality. However, today a group of Konso women make, use, and discard flaked stone tools to process hides, offering us an alternative to the man-the-toolmaker model and redefining Western “naturalized” gender roles.........In our Western-centric reconstructions of the past, women bear children while men hunt, butcher, explore, lead rituals, and produce technology—including stone tools."
This was in 2010, written by a female anthropologist. It shows women doing the whole thing, from quarrying the raw material, heat-treating it (seen as cooking hence suitably female), producing and using the tools. O, and seems early reports of women using stone tools were there, just that since at the time the victorian gents were thinking of stone as primitive and low-tech (compared, say, to metal), so suitably female as well at that time. Chaps use iron, only feeble ladies have to use primitive stone. Then when we realised that stone tools weren't that simple, suddenly it became MAN the stone tool maker and skilled flint-knapper again...............

SylviaPoe · 10/05/2017 20:33

I agree with someDyke's posts on this thread.

OlennasWimple · 10/05/2017 20:37

Just marking my place on this fascinating discussion....

GuardianLions · 10/05/2017 20:48

I completely agree somedyke ithe is preposterous to think that girls and women wouldn't have worked flint or whittled sticks. I think in a lot of hunter-gatherer and nomadic tribes to this day the women build the huts which can invlove using stakes, etc.

There is historical sexist bias in anthropology that is difficult for people to shake. I remember in a fairly recent Dr Alice Roberts documentary she was shown how to work flint. She commented how natural/instinctive it felt in her hands, then weirdly corrected herself to suggest it would have been the men making stone tools.. Confused

SomeDyke · 10/05/2017 22:38

Just to add, since I've been rambling on a bit, that I've been wondering what the current research is on exactly when the ole patriarchy got going. Used to be 'when agriculture started'. So, I was then thinking about when sexual division of labour supposedly started. And then just got plain annoyed how so much was just assumed................
Got some books on women in prehistory, plodding my way through them........................

QuentinSummers · 10/05/2017 22:50

some it is annoying
I assume it was when money and transferable assets came in but it's just a hunch.

GuardianLions · 10/05/2017 23:34

My hunch is domesticating animals for labour and food, through selective breeding, relating to polygyny in nomadic tribes:

A large flock = wealth & status
+
Lots of wives = lots of kids = status and power for a man.
+
Women being exploited and controlled by males for their reproductive and domestic labour (like domestic animals) = the oppression of women for the wealth, status and power of men = Patriarchy.

MrsFionaCharming · 10/05/2017 23:54

Toolmakers, gorillas, and all night lesbian sex sessions... this thread really has it all!

TeiTetua · 11/05/2017 00:43

Hey, did "wielding weapons" turn into "making and using tools" back there?

Apart from trying to understand ancient societies, there's some stuff to ponder in reports on tribal societies that survived long enough to be studied. One book that was popular a while ago was "Nisa" by Marjorie Shostak, which is the reminiscences of a !Kung San ("Bushman") woman from southern Africa. There's a summary here:
www.sparknotes.com/lit/nisa/summary.html

One relevant thing that I remember in that book was that there was a woman in the village who loved to eat meat, married to a man who was too lazy to go out hunting with the other men. So she joined the hunting parties herself, and Nisa recounted this as the biggest joke in the village, laughing at both members of the couple. Nisa also endured a lot of violence, including domestic violence and fights with other women(!!) In fact, her own daughter died from an attack by the daughter's husband. But at least the !Kung don't fight wars.

And I read "Under the Mountain Wall" by Peter Matthiessen, which is about a tribe in New Guinea, who had never encountered white people before. Warfare was constant there, both pitched battles and surprise raids, in which anyone the raiders met, even children, might be killed. Feuds were common, and rape is mentioned more than once. The !Kung weren't entirely patriarchal, but the New Guinea tribe was no place for a feminist.

SylviaPoe · 11/05/2017 00:59

I assume it turned into making tools because many Stone Age tools are also weapons?

I've never read Under The Mountain, but just looking at the blurb I can see it involves farming. So what does that as an example tell us about the kind of hunter gatherers societies that humans evolved in and lived in for most of our existence?

The OP was talking about why our bodies have evolved to have certain sexual characteristics. We didn't evolve in a farming society.

GuardianLions · 11/05/2017 02:10

Indeed, addressing the OP seems to require busting a few myths such as women not having the wherewithal to use the tools they fashioned and used in normal life as weapons to protect themselves and their babies when necessary, but instead waited around for 'protection' by strong men.

Something else that might be relevant to the OP though is breastfeeding, and other aspects of our biology to do with pregnancy, birth and motherhood .

Breastfeeding triggers the contraction of the womb after giving birth. Also I found it annoying in the time when I was still nursing that I would start lactating when I orgasmed - I could not see what purpose that could serve. It did give me a sense that all these things interlink somehow. Also there's the blissful feeling that you get when your baby sleeps on top of you or strokes your arm. Although it is a bit hard to get my head around, I wonder if Elaine Morgan (Descent of Woman) is right in her hypothesis that a lot of the physical pleasures women get from their babies as part of bonding, can be stimulated to bliss us out by a partner mimicking them in a sexual context....

OlennasWimple · 11/05/2017 14:11

I keep meaning to read some of Margaret Mead's works, having read Lily King's Euphoria which is largely based on her life and works. MM was an anthropologist with a particular interest in female sexuality and it is suggested that she herself was bisexual. There is an interesting scene in the book - which some people have said was completely fabricated, some claim it is based on actual practice - where all the women in the tribe take themselves off to a separate tent and essentially masturbate each other, and generally hang out without male companionship.

On the OP, surely we already know all about prehistoric sex from the Clan of the Cave Bear books Wink

SomeDyke · 11/05/2017 14:36

"I wonder if Elaine Morgan (Descent of Woman) is right in her hypothesis that a lot of the physical pleasures women get from their babies as part of bonding, can be stimulated to bliss us out by a partner mimicking them in a sexual context...."
Well, explains why nipples are sensitive and pleasurable, even in men.

Also explains kissing somewhat in terms of maternal food-passing (although I believe chimps kiss as well, and pass chewed food, so OLD part of our system).

What IS different between ourselves and our nearest relatives is hidden ovulation, and permanent breasts (I hadn't really twigged that apparently chimp breasts shrink back again after lactation has finished. Whereas ours are out there all the time. O, and the face-to-face coupling position as a result of bi-pedalism.

"where all the women in the tribe take themselves off to a separate tent and essentially masturbate each other" Wouldn't be surprised. Various claims of younger men/boys giving other men blow jobs, and the greeks certainly socialised a certain amount of male homosexual activity. Female chimps masturbate, so society deciding to add in some female on female action (well, bonoboes do it!), isn't that extraordinary. Although I suspect the patriarchy might have stomped in there at some point to put the kybosh on that, along with FGM and breast ironing, fear of unbridled female sexuality and what we might get up to without men seems quite old as well.................

makeourfuture · 11/05/2017 15:18

I am wondering about diet. This is thin gruel here.

I saw a programme that stated that while we think about cave people eating a lot of roasted meat....protein consumption was actually very low.

But I was thinking, if there is a relationship between testosterone and protein in building male muscle mass....could it be that way back then, if meat consumption was much less, could men have had a lesser strength advantage?

I know nothing about this subject...