On Human Nature

A new study from the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University demonstrated, among other things, that men who had a higher number of lifetime sexual partners reported lower than average levels of sexual satisfaction:

Men and women both were likely to report sexual satisfaction if they also reported frequent kissing and cuddling, sexual caressing by the partner, higher sexual functioning, and if they had sex more frequently. On the other hand, for men, having had more sex partners in their lifetime was a predictor of less sexual satisfaction.

This compliments what Regenerus & Uecker documented in  Premarital Sex in America, namely that women who had a higher number of lifetime sexual partners were more likely to report above average levels of unhappiness and experienced depression and other mental health issues more often.  They further argued that the data showed that the correlation was causal, and thus concluded that, as a general rule, the more sexual partners a woman had the more unhappy and more depressed she was likely to be.

On the other hand, Regenerus and Uecker found no correlation between a higher number of sexual partners and depression in men, and thus concluded that having more sexual partners was not detrimental - at least mentally - to men.  This Kinsey study then appears to fill that gap.  While a higher number of sexual partners does not cause depression in men, it does rob them of their sense of sexual satisfaction.

So there you have it: having more sexual partners leads to depression in women and dissatisfaction in men.  In other words, it's bad for you.

Now we could respond to this by jumping up and down in a fit of pompous I-told-you-so-ness and ranting about how the bible was right all along, but I'm sure James Dobson is already doing enough of that for everybody.

We could conjecture reasons why this counter-intuitive truth is true with men -- why would more sex partners lead to less sexual satisfaction?  Is it because the multiplicity of reference points dumps them into an empty and vicious circle of comparison and envy, i.e. they can never be satisfied with one sexual partner because they are always wondering if they are missing out on a better future partner?  Or maybe regretting losing a past partner?

I would rather, however, take the opportunity to wonder about human nature.  The thing is, while more sexual partners appears to be scientifically proven to be bad for you, the average human has, historically, been obsessed with getting just that very thing.  The fact that most men, in general, would like to have sex with lots of women can be filed under obvious.  It is men, after all, who are more likely to cheat.  It is men , historically, who kept harems.  Even King David - famously a man after God's own heart - kept a harem, and his son, the divinely wise King Solomon, had upwards of one thousand wives and concubines.  In the moive The Man In The Iron Mask one of the young king's underlings note the king's harem and asks "so many women, do you ever really love any of them?"  The King smiles and replies "quite frequently!"  Bottom line, we seem to be hard wired in our nature to want more sexual partners.  So why does our nature want what is bad for us?

This leads to today's reading, from Robert Jensen's "Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity."  (And before you classify him as a Dobsonian conservative, it should be noted that Jensen self-identifies in his own words as a liberal, bi-sexual "radical feminist"):

In the ongoing cultural conversation, these issues often reduce to claims that some aspect of human behaviour is "natural."  At one level, this is a true but empty statement.  If human beings can do something, by definition it means that behaviour is within our nature to do and is, therefore, in some sense natural.  We all have within us, as a part of our nature, the ability to engage in a range of behaviours.  We have the capacity to be kind and loving to friends and family, and then turn around and torture them.  We have the capacity to love our children and to beat them to death.  All of these activities are natural in this basic sense, and they happen frequently enough that they cannot be written off as the aberrant behaviour of a limited part of the population that is sociopathic.  But most of the time when people assert that a behaviour is "natural," they are making a much more extensive claim; they are asserting or implying that the behaviour is either morally desirable or, if not desirable, extremely difficult to change.  Some argue that such changes are so difficult that the individual and or social "costs" of trying outweigh any likely benefit, though such claims are usually being made by just those people whose privilege is being threatened.  Is it surprising that such people are quick to assert the status quo is natural?  (p. 141-42)

And that much is true.  It is too common today to hear human nature and "it's natural" used to sanctify and justify any number of behaviours.  There seems to be a growing assumption that if something comes naturally, it must therefore be good and right.   As Joshua Knobe recently discussed in the New York Times, following your "true nature" has become a maxim of modern culture:

We might tell him that what he really needs to do is just look deep within and be true to himself. Indeed, this advice has become a ubiquitous refrain.  It can be found in high art and literature (Polonius’s “To thine own self be true”), in catchy pop songs (Madonna’s “Express Yourself”) and in endless advertisements for self-help programs and yoga retreats (“Unlock your soul; become your authentic self”).  It is, perhaps, one of the distinctive ideals of modern life.

As Knobe goes on to discuss though, traditionally in philosophy human nature has been thought of in a different - and indeed opposite - way.  Historically, the true nature of a person was thought to be the character that we rationally construct and strive for which rises above our baser instincts and desires.  In other words, base human nature was what we were supposed to overcome, not embrace:

If we look to the philosophical tradition, we find a relatively straightforward answer to this question.  This answer, endorsed by numerous different philosophers in different ways, says that what is most distinctive and essential to a human being is the capacity for rational reflection.  A person might find herself having various urges, whims or fleeting emotions, but these are not who she most fundamentally is.  If you want to know who she truly is, you would have to look to the moments when she stops to reflect and think about her deepest values.  Take the person fighting an addiction to heroin.  She might have a continual craving for another fix, but if she just gives in to this craving, it would be absurd to say that she is thereby “being true to herself” or “expressing the person she really is.” On the contrary, she is betraying herself and giving up what she values most. This sort of approach gives us a straightforward answer in a case like [this man's].  It says that his sexual desires are not the real him.  If he loses control and gives in to these desires, he will be betraying his true self.

This echoes Robert Jensen's conclusion, that human nature should not be allowed to act as some biological determinant, simultaneously justifying and necessitating our behaviour:

In the end, the question of biological determinism is in one sense irrelevant.  Even if one could demonstrate that men's aggressive sexual behaviour was hardwired and inevitable, so what?  If such behaviour has consequences that violate our most fundamental sense of justice, would we still not want to do everything we could to prevent it?  Would we not infact work especially hard to overcome that unfortunate reality of our evolutionary history? (p. 178)

 So let's look beyond the nature we are born with, and instead let's identify the true good and seek after it.