Posts Tagged ‘bonobos’
So how did bonobos become female dominant? Can anybody tell me…?
girls girls girls
One of the things that pissed me off about the ‘evolutionary psychologist’ who mocked a female writer who found inspiration in bonobos, was that he himself expressed not the slightest curiosity about how this species, the closest one to humans along with chimps, actually became female dominant. He was too busy trying to argue that we had nothing to learn from these apes, and that our ‘psychology’ was patriarchal from the get-go, and presumably always will be.
Anyway, enough of him. Many women have been inspired by bonobos and this will continue into the future. And we know that the principal feature of their dominance is sisterhood. Here’s how the NY Times put it in an article posted last April:
… researchers who tracked six bonobo communities in the Democratic Republic of Congo over nearly 30 years provided the first evidence-based explanation for how female bonobos gain and sustain dominance over the males within their communities. Females, they found, form coalitions against males to tip the balance of power in their favor.
When a male bonobo steps out of line, nearby females will band together to attack or intimidate him. Males who cower in the face of such conflicts lose social rank, while their female adversaries gain it, affording them better access to food, and mates for their sons.
Much is made in the article, and in other material I’ve read, that bonobos are not exactly the peaceful ape they’re claimed to be. But who claims this? My own focus has always been on matriarchy, not at all on peace. In human society, women have been murderers and child abusers – but of course not on anything like the level of men. Bonobo females sometimes have to deal aggressively with uppity males – often targeting the private parts (not so private for non-human primates). Chimp males on the other hand, and even females, have sometimes engaged in infanticide, and whole chimp troupes have been known to wipe out other troupes in all-out warfare.
Bonobos deal with tension between troupes through food-sharing and of course mutual masturbation (producing that sticky stuff that brings folk together). There has as yet been no solid evidence of bonobos killing bonobos, but it may well happen from time to time. So how did they come to be so different after, at most, 2 million years of separation from chimps? The time frame is important, considering the differences between the two species, and some studies argue for less than a million years.
As the article above points out, it’s about coalitions, a Bonobo Sisterhood, as Diane Rosenfeld has argued, most cogently, as a template for human females. So how and why did this sisterhood evolve? My thought on this is that, in the forests of the region south of the Congo, there was an abundant enough food supply, mostly frugivorous, so that hunting and physically overcoming animal resources became surplus to requirements. Physical size and strength was less important – as is the case in post-industrial human societies. That’s why we now allow women into the military and other ‘tough’ forms of employment, at least in more enlightened societies. And along with those changes we have women being ‘trusted’ to run businesses, to head scientific and legal teams, and even to be elected into parliaments and occasionally become Prime Ministers or Presidents. But of course the balance of power, even in the ‘enlightened’ WEIRD world, is still massively in favour of men. But, l’avenir est féminin, my t-shirt proclaims, and l’avenir est long….
And again, for those who are apt to mock the idea that we can learn anything from our ‘dumb’ ape cousins, I’ve been reminded, through an essay just sent to me by a friend, and referenced below, of Kanzi the bonobo, who ‘stunned the world’ with his cognitive abilities. It’s extremely doubtful that he’s a ‘freak’, a Stephen Hawking of the bonobo world, though the fact that he was brought up in captivity, with human carers, must be taken into account.
References
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/147470491501300115
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/science/bonobos-matriarchies-females.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/science/bonobos-apes-matriarchy.html
Diane Rosenfeld, The bonobo sisterhood: revolution through female alliance, 2023
A bonobo named Kanzi could play pretend, challenging ideas about animal imaginations
tracing the history of patriarchy…
before pants were invented…
I’ve been wondering what to write next, whether I should limit myself to gender and feminist issues or to go wherever my very flighty mind takes me – to neutrinos, say, or dark matter and dark energy, all of which fascinates me but which I feel I should leave to experts, but what am I expert in? – this blog used to be called ‘An autodidact meets a dilettante’, and I wrote it in dialogue form, to satisfy my masculine and feminine personae, but then I decided, sort of, to focus more on feminism and the possibility of female supremacy, but I’ve never been able to keep to the script. And so…
Yesterday I was all set to have a go at particle physics, but I was at a friend’s house and she got me watching a video from a regular vodcaster (I think that’s the term), whose videos go under the title ‘Breaking Down Patriarchy’. Of course she knew that I’d be interested, and while watching I thought to myself, yes, I should stick to this topic – because it’s kind of endless and inexhaustible.
The presenter is a United Stater (not her fault) named Amy McPhie Allebest, and although it seems she is a Mormon, or was at least brought up as such and still retains her Christianity if not that particular take on Christianity, she presents the case against patriarchy in a highly intelligent, reasoned and humane way. In fact her calm approach sets a fine example for a ‘bonafide’ humanist like me (I was a member of the South Australian Humanists for years, and gave a number of talks to the group, including one on the rapid decline of Christianity in Australia), as I sometimes get a bit nasty – for example in recent pieces criticising an ‘evolutionary psychologist’ and his take on the evolution of human patriarchy and its supposed naturalness.
The argument goes, as one Breaking Down Patriarchy video points out, that the ancestral development of bipedalism altered the configuration of the lower limbs and pelvis, including the birth canal, so that offspring tended to be born at an earlier and more vulnerable stage of life, requiring more maternal care. And more paternal care? Of course, mothers did the breast-feeding, but child-minding and protecting could have been shared – as happens with bonobos. In fact bonobos aren’t monogamous at all, so it tends to be all in for the child-rearing. So again I raise the question – when, if ever, did we become ‘naturally’ monogamous?
Meanwhile, there was hunting, and gathering. It had long been thought that there was a fairly strict division of labour, on gender lines, but this is now being questioned, as well as the issue of which activity brought more nutrients to the group. On this question, a documentary, referenced below, provides striking data. Men and women in neolithic China, and in Malta at a similar period, were ‘of equal status’ – they ate the same foods, and, whether or not hunting was all-male and gathering was all-female (it’s unlikely), the usual claim that the hunting was more ‘important’, both in terms of the nutrients and of the status it provided, is now being debunked. It’s worth noting that my bonobo mates ate a mostly frugivorous diet, with absolutely no ill effects as far as I’m aware. Their ‘hunting’ was opportunistic – if some small animal or rodent happened by, it would be chased and seized, by either gender, and shared. Claims that hunting conferred greater status for men, as in the hunter-gatherers of Namibia, have been more or less debunked, unsurprisingly, considering that most of the food consumed wasn’t obtained through hunting.
This documentary, ‘Gender Revolution: The real role of ancient women’, also raises questions about ancient cave art, which often depicts tasty mammals. Early discoverers of these works ‘naturally’ assumed the artists were male, a typically 19th century view (for good measure the doco-makers cited Chaz Darwin’s typically Victorian view that men have evolved to be smarter than women). We can probably never be sure who created this art (examination of accompanying handprints doesn’t really answer the question, though I was fascinated by the fact that the female hand narrows toward the wrist more than the male hand – in my case, it’s true!), but it certainly isn’t safe to assume they were all men. Again, assumptions that neolithic and earlier hunters were men is based on a much later patriarchal society that kept women in domesticity and valued their ‘softness’ and physical weakness. It may be that we’ll never be certain about the status of women in the varied, scattered neolithic and bronze age societies. Bones from a bronze age site in China have revealed that the women’s diet was deficient in particular nutrients, suggesting separation and status imbalance, as well as an increase in sexual dimorphism. Bronze age sites in Europe have revealed a similar diet imbalance based on gender. The bronze age, dating from around 4,000 years ago was a period of much more elaborate burials, especially for males. Male corpses are always found at the centre of family burials, indicating their centrality and status in life.
Different climatic conditions seem to have affected different gender-based behaviour, tasks and diet. A period of climatic stabilisation marked the beginning of the Holocene, some 11,700 years ago, and the beginning of stable agriculture and animal husbandry. But this leads to struggles for the best agricultural land, the best herds, and so on. So, the story goes, the age of warfare begins, and to a large extent it still continues.
Another feature of this period of stabilisation as opposed to mobility was that women began to give birth more frequently, becoming, to a greater degree, ‘perpetual mothers’, increasingly domesticised. Reducing breast-feeding periods, thanks to the development of specialised meals such as porridges for children, led to increased post-natal fertility and more children – and more suffering and death for mothers. Common-marriage systems came into being, as fathers sought to maintain control of their children – essentially their property – into the next generation.
Patrilocality has also become a proven feature of bronze age societies. This prevented inbreeding, and is also a feature of bonobo and chimp societies. It’s been argued that this is another blow to female independence and status, as they have to establish themselves in a new group, presumably with more or less zero status to start with, and yet this still doesn’t prevent bonobo females from being dominant. I’ve watched a video which followed one of these young females as she nervously sought to be accepted by these bonobo strangers, but it didn’t really address the issue – presumably, once accepted by the females, she was able to contribute to their group domination of the males. The simple answer seems to be that sisterhood is powerful… and the males are just too egotistical to form similar brotherly bonds…?
It’s intriguing, and worth pursuing….
References
this is important: bonobos and humans
Wolf Alice – the right stuff
I’ve been listening to the music and watching the videos of Wolf Alice recently – I’ve just discovered them, mea culpa. Just a fantastic band. They often sing about emotional stuff, emotional confusion, as in the song Blush, which is accompanied by a video that adds gender to the confusion, and an extra dose of sadness to the word ‘happy’, which is the song’s refrain.
I won’t pretend to analyse the song, but it’s one of a number of influences lately that have made me think of humanity’s gender issues – issues that don’t seem to be shared by our closest rellies. Tormenting issues.
My novel In Elizabeth dealt with adolescent and later teen issues in a working-class town, mostly in a light-hearted way. But the fact is, it was a period of torment – though sometimes I felt a sort of enlightenment, or superiority, in thinking of things, indulging in feelings, that I sensed were ‘beyond the pale’.
I described my first sex (but what exactly is ‘sex’, is it feelings or acts? The first erection, the first masturbation, the first awareness of the exciting/disturbing physicality of your own body, the first physical attraction to another?) – so here I’m talking about my first act of putting my penis into the vagina of a girl, an act which, I’m not sure, was probably illegal according to the laws of the time, and even of today. It was my 16th birthday, and the girl was a year below me at school, so either 14 or 15, but not a virgin, as she told me. I was beyond words overwhelmed by the occasion, because she was the most beautiful girl I’d ever seen. Only a few weeks before I’d spotted her in a school corridor, chatting to girlfriends. Her movements, her smile, her grace mesmerised me, and I recall thinking of a young horse, a filly, free and unself-conscious, untamed, perfect. For days I could barely think of anything else and I kept seeking her out in the school grounds….
So I described my obsession to a school friend, and when I pointed her out, he told me he knew her, her name was Edwina, her family were friends with his, and he suggested ‘putting in a good word to her’ about me. That sounded ridiculous, and I agreed. A couple of days later he came back to me. Edwina said yes, she would be my girlfriend.
The joyful impulses of youth. I described this in my novel, and I described the massive impact of Bowie on me as a 16 year-old, and my youthful questioning of sexuality and gender. I didn’t happen to mention that the boy who got me together with Edwina (very briefly) was very pretty, and I had delicious fantasies about him. Not that I avoided homosexuality – I wrote of some boy-boy cuddles and fantasies, which at least one reader told me she found ‘a bit shocking’.
To be honest, I’m shocked, dismayed, and above all disappointed, that people are shocked. Which seems code for disapproval.
The whole male-female gender stuff is still very much a minefield, and a battlefield. As someone in his 70th year on the planet, I’m hoping I can think about it ‘objectively’, if that word means anything.
The issue is important because for centuries upon centuries we’ve lived in a patriarchal world. I’ve read a lot of history, and much of it has been about men behaving badly. And I mean really really badly. And there are still large regions of the world in which females are automatically considered to be inferior, meaning their lives are heavily circumscribed vis-à-vis men. So gender matters muchly.
So what is it? What do we mean by it? And what does it mean to a bird, a cat or a bonobo?
Bonobos are female-dominant. In order to be so, they must clearly be aware of their gender, though they have no knowledge of the word ‘gender’ – they’re never confused by language like we can be. So they’re driven, or affected, by instinct, to be supportive of their own gender. They know who’s male and who’s female, though there may be degrees of maleness and femaleness, as Frans de Waal pointed out in the case of Donna, the female chimp who hung out with the males and never became pregnant (she finally became the dominant chimp in her troupe – or rather in the Lincoln Park zoo enclosure where she lived – but would this have happened in the wild?)
It’s difficult enough to understand how and why bonobos became female-dominant in a period of one or two million years (a pretty wide margin of error) since their separation from chimps, without trying to understand our broadly patriarchal system, which is clearly undergoing change, not only in the WEIRD world. Still, it’s a fascinating topic, which I feel the need to focus on more exclusively, without being distracted by Trumpism or the possibly coming European holocaust, should Putin be pushed to the brink, or the possible slaughter of Taiwanese people under Xi – and other horrorshow issues.
So, in the non-human primate world, size generally matters, and males are mostly bigger than females. Gorillas and orangutans are at the extreme end of this dimorphism. Interesting in the case of orangutans, as they’re solitary, so there’s no obvious need for gender-based dominance – but then, if you’re going to rape a female, it pays to be as big and strong as possible. But of course, the term ‘rape’ is never used when referring to non-human primates. Forced copulation is the preferred term.
But ‘forced copulation’ isn’t just a euphemism. It’s done to produce offspring, and humans don’t have sex, be it via rape or love or anything in between, just to produce children. And why do orangutans have sex? Do they know they’re doing it to produce children? Does a dog – male or female – rub its genital area intensely on your leg to produce offspring? Silly question. These activities are ‘evolutionary by-products’ – we are stimulated to have sex in order to reproduce, but that stimulation being in itself pleasurable, we just do it regardless, often without a partner. And often, as with bonobos, to promote fellow-feeling – you rub my front and I’ll rub yours. Humans often do it for similar reasons, but not enough, I think. After all, we can mutually masturbate and reflect on the nature of dark matter/energy. We contain multitudes.
I’m generally intrigued, and often disturbed, by the difference between human sexual practices and those of other species. Again we are probably the only species that knows that sex leads to pregnancy. We’re also the only clothed species, and these two facts seem connected. Is there anywhere on this planet where public nudity (above a certain tender age) is not a crime? Clothing and civilisation go hand in hand, and most people are relieved that this so. After all, we’re not animals…
But seriously, civilisation demands clothing. Indeed, we might argue that the greater our level of civilisation, the more vast and varied our vestments should be. Charles Darwin, as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, used the word ‘savage’ rather a lot in The descent of man, and it seems clear to me that he could see one coming by her lack of anything resembling a petticoat.
So, enough of the cheap shots. I’m intrigued, and inspired by the fact, and surely this is a fact, that bonobos have used sex to become female dominant, while humans have used violence to become male dominant.
There, I’ve come out with it. I’ve avoided being direct about it till now, in fact I’m not even sure that I was clearly aware of this before writing it. Of course it wasn’t deliberate, but that’s how it happened. So, if we deliberately create, or try to create, a female dominant society, will it have a bonoboesque result? Are we currently trying to create such a society, or is it just happening, like evolution? The WEIRD world is certainly more ‘permissive’ than it used to be – with the inevitable frustrating conservative backlash, which means we need to recognise that the future is long, frustratingly long for us mortals, especially the oldies. And of course there are plenty of ultra-conservative females in powerful positions throughout our world, as well as women who are skeptical of any difference that greater female empowerment would make. Usually they point to one or two female politicians, or bosses, or mothers, who weren’t much chop. That’s a ‘not seeing the forest for the trees’ argument, IMHO.
Obviously I’m not going to be around to experience a female-dominant WEIRD world, and neither is anyone now living. It may never happen, but I think it should, for the sake of humanity and life on this planet. The trouble-makers today are the leaders of Russia, the USA, China, Iran, Israel, Sudan and North Korea, to name a prominent few. Of course they’re all male, and they’d all expect their successors to be male for all eternity, but that won’t happen, at least we know that much.
So, Wolf Alice isn’t an all-female band, but at least they’re not an all-male one, and there’s no doubt that their sole female member, Ellie Rowsell, is also their most prominent member, for a number of reasons. Their song The Sofa, in contrast to Blush, the song I mentioned at the beginning of this essay, seems to me to be happy and life-affirming, and the accompanying video of males, females and kids engaging in fun, skillful, weird and wonderful activities as a backdrop to a floating or rolling sofa occupied by the band members in turn, but mostly by Rowsell, the singer (and intellectual beauty queen), is – well, it’s just nice, in a bonobo sort of way. Here are some of the lyrics:
Hope I can accept the wild thing in me, hope nobody comes to tame her, And she can be free.Sick of second-guessing my behaviour, And what I want to be. Just let me lie here on the sofa…
I’ll be fine, I’ll be okay, I feel kind of lucky right now and I’m not ashamed to sayI can be happy, I can be sadI can be a bitch when I get madI wanna settle down, or to fall in loveBut sometimes, I just want to fuckI love my life, I love my lifeSometimes, I just want to…
Bonobos don’t have sofas, but I like to think to think they have a similar mind-set, if in a more simplified form. Emotionally labile at times, excitable, sexual, and, given their precarious position in the Congo, hoping to maintain their freedom, the threats to which they’re perhaps dimly aware of. .
So, vive les bonobos, and thank you Wolf Alice, you’re good.
Okay, so this is a chimp, but you get the idea…
on civilisation, savages, clothing, sex and bonobos
I’m a great admirer of Charles Darwin. I’ve read On the Origin of Species three times now. I’ve read his Voyage of the Beagle, and a number of biographies – Darwin, by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Janet Browne’s two-volume work, Charles Darwin, Voyaging, and Charles Darwin, the Power of Place, as well as Rebecca Stott’s Darwin and the Barnacle and David Quammen’s The Kiwi’s Egg: Charles Darwin and Natural Selection. Not that I’m showing off or anything…. I also have a copy of The Indelible Stamp – four volumes in one, the Voyage, the Origin, the Descent, and the Expression of the Emotions. I’m currently about a third of the way through The Descent of Man, but…
In spite of all that I know about this driven, timid, well-born, sensitive, fatherly, loyal, reclusive, internationally-connected, obsessive genius, his revolutionary impact on biological science, and the Victorian-era context of his life, I still find myself wincing at his regular use of the word ‘savage’ to refer to certain types of human, especially in The Descent. It is of course, a very much discarded term today, and I’m quite aware that I wouldn’t have winced had I been reading the book in the late 19th century.
So I’ve been thinking about what exactly made certain humans ‘savages’ in the minds of your typical Victorian gentleman. And to me, the primary feature of the ‘savage’ was clothing, or the lack thereof.
Think of clothing in upper-class Victorian society. Top hats, frock coats, or great-coats in winter, waistcoats and ties or cravats, stiff-collared shirts, high-waisted trousers, sometimes with suspenders, and of course a good solid pair of boots. Certainly their clothing had to be of a quality that distinguished them from their servants, of which Darwin had many over the years.
And then, I almost forgot, there also existed another, generally lower class of Victorian, known mostly as ladies, though courser terms were sometimes used. Their clothing was more layered and complex, involving corsets and crinolines, petticoats, bustles, bows, furbelows and lace trimmings, and finished off with jewellery of various kinds – necklaces, brooches, medallions and such, all of which required servants for dressing and maintenance. Surprisingly enough, these ladies and gentlemen sometimes produced children, which generally required something like an archaeological excavation on the part of the male. Then again, a more plausible explanation is that these children were carried to upper class couples by storks.
So, imagine how shocked some of these more adventurous, voyaging gentlemen would have been on encountering the inhabitants of darkest Africa, Tierra del Fuego, Australia, New Zealand, and the many scattered islands of the Pacific and elsewhere, and finding that their inhabitants were almost as unclothed as – animals! Wild animals, even.
I haven’t done much voyaging and exploring outside of books. When I first learned of native Americans I pictured many feathers, in head-dresses and skirt-like garments, with muscular bodies naked apart from dots and dashes of paint, or woad or whatever. I also pictured – and saw on our TV screen – skilled horse-riders, bow-and-arrow sharp-shooters, strong and silent types, with cool, unsmiling expressions. They never seemed to have anything to smile about, to be sure.
It was also clear that these various peoples had their own languages, rituals, and skills, tools and inventions adapted to survival and thriving in an environment they’d become familiar with over thousands of years. In his Voyage of the Beagle, Darwin describes the Aboriginal people he encounters in Australia:
They were all partly clothed, and several could speak a little English: their countenances were good-humoured and pleasant, and they appeared far from being such utterly degraded beings as they have usually been represented. In their own arts they are admirable. A cap being fixed at 30 yards distance, they transfixed it with a spear, delivered by the throwing-stick with the rapidity of an arrow from the bow of a practiced archer. In tracking animals or men they show most wonderful sagacity; and I heard several of their remarks which manifested considerable acuteness. They will not, however, cultivate the ground, or build houses and remain stationary, or even take the trouble of tending a flock of sheep when given to them. On the whole they appear to me to stand some degrees higher in the scale of civilisation than the Fuegians.
Of course Darwin couldn’t help but make comparisons with his own ‘civilisation’. Some could speak English and make astute observations, but they were a bit weak on housing and land cultivation. He presumably wasn’t aware that when the first fleet of convicts and guards tried to cultivate the land at Sidney Cove they were seriously unsuccessful, the soils being nowhere near as fertile as those in England, and totally unsuitable for English-style crops. Only the arrival of the Second Fleet, and a slow general understanding that they needed to adapt to vastly different environmental conditions, prevented catastrophic loss of life. Nor did he recognise that the semi-nomadic lifestyle of Australia’s native population was an intelligent and hard-earned adaptation to local conditions over tens of thousands of years.
So, Darwin described these natives as ‘partly clothed’. What does this mean? The earliest photographic images were taken decades after the beginning of white settlement, but women were generally depicted bare-breasted, unlike the highly civilised women of today, and men’s genitalia were hidden under pouches tied with strings. Was this always the case, before civilised whities caught a glimpse? We’ll never know. It does seem that the taste for decoration, expressed largely in clothing by my culture, was also a part of native cultures, through face and body painting, especially for ceremonial occasions.
And with all this near-nakedness, what about sex? Well, it’d be way too time-consuming and effortful to look into the sex lives of all the peoples that Darwin and the Victorians would deem to be savages, so why not focus on the land that recently came to be known as Australia? Well, unsurprisingly, given the vastness of the continent, the huge variety of its landscapes and environments, the large number of language and cultural groups living in isolation from each other, the story is one of diversity and complexity – not a free-for-all, but not standard Victorian monogamy either.
It’s been claimed, and I think proven, by anthropologists and historians that Australia has been inhabited for some 50,000 years by these native peoples. What wouldn’t we give to travel back all those years to see what those early arrivals were up to. For that matter, what was human life like in the region of Kent 50,000 years ago? Presumably colder than down south, with very different megafauna to deal with. And the reason why things changed so much in the north, in Europe, especially in the last five to ten thousand years, is explained, at least partly, by books such as Who we are and how we got here, by David Reich, and The WEIRDest people in the world: How the west became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous, by Joseph Henrich. Waves of interaction, often brutal, from the east, brought not only rape and pillage, but new weaponry and skills, technology and tactics – and whole new approaches to culture, with, in the last thousand years or more, eastern Confucian patriarchy and middle eastern Islamic patriarchy reinforcing western Catholic patriarchy, forces which women, at least in the last century or so, have just begun to fight off.
And so to bonobos, those fabulous but insufficiently appreciated close relatives of ours, unhampered by clothing or religion, unjudged by puritanical ideologies, unwed but far from unloved. Judged by human standards, bonobos are paedophiles, sluts, studs, poofs, lezzos, straights, queers, nymphos, ambisexuals and all the rest, yet the only threat to their community is humanity….
What more needs to be said?
References
Charles Darwin, The voyage of the Beagle
Charles Darwin, The descent of man
a closer look at bonobos, enfin
As this blog is called what it is, I’ve decided to read the entire, long, Wikipedia article on bonobos to get a more subtle and comprehensive feel for their society and how it shapes their individuality – though of course I’ll continue to write on completely different subjects. What I’m finding so far is that there are nuances, as you would expect, and as we find in human societies. And of course it would be the same with other social species – a member of the normally less dominant gender will, through proven capabilities or particular personality traits, be given a more prominent role than usual, and leadership of or status within the group is not solely based on gender. Ranking may have a degree of fluidity based on behaviour and alliances. Not all males are subordinate and not all females are bosses. Nevertheless, bonobos are definitely matriarchal – just as chimps are patriarchal, also with some fluidity.
It surprised me when I learned, some years ago, that bonobos have a ‘male philopatric’ society. The term conveys a gender distinction – the male stays ‘at home’ for mating and reproduction, while the female moves to another group for that purpose. This occurs in some human societies too. While visiting the Tiwi Islands just north of Darwin, I was told by our islander guide that he had just ‘lost’ his sister, who had moved to another tribal group to marry, meaning that their connection was permanently broken. His culture actually forbade him to have any more contact with her. So the early Catholic Church prohibitions against first, second, third and fourth cousins marrying, as described in Joseph Henrich’s historical account of the WEIRD world, as well as many long-held cultural traditions of Australasia and elsewhere, likely hark back to our hominid ancestors.
In any case, male philopatry doesn’t seem very matriarchal. There are of course good reasons for philopatry (male or female) in general, as well as good reasons for its opposite, male or female dispersal, which inevitably means that these behaviours, their causes and consequences, are widely disputed. I think I’ll return to this issue in another post.
A particularly interesting feature of bonobo culture, fairly recently recognised, is co-operation between two separate groups, or troupes. This was in the Congo’s Kokolopori Bonobo Reserve, which may, I think, represent a space between ‘the wild’ and ‘captivity’, and so may influence behaviour. From Wikipedia:
Over two years of observation, researchers witnessed 95 encounters between the groups. Contrary to expectations, these interactions resembled those within a single group. During these encounters, the bonobos engaged in behaviours such as grooming, food sharing, and collective defense against threats like snakes. Notably, the two groups, while displaying cooperative tendencies, maintained distinct identities, and there was no evidence of interbreeding or a blending of cultures. The cooperation observed was not arbitrary but evolved through individual bonds formed by exchanging favors and gifts. Some bonobos even formed alliances to target a third individual, demonstrating a nuanced social dynamic within the groups.
This contrasts importantly with the deadly clashes between groups of chimpanzees observed by Goodall and others.
Bonobos engage in tongue-kissing, the only non-human creatures observed to do so, at least thus far. And this brings us to sex, a difficult topic to write about, even in a blog nobody reads, given so many cultural and religious tabus swirling around it in human society. So, best just to be descriptive, without making comparisons to H sapiens.
Bonobos aren’t monogamous, and they engage in sexual activity from an early age. It is mostly masturbatory, and indiscriminate, with the possible exception of mothers sexually engaging with adult sons. Heightened sexual activity often occurs when rich food sources are found, in which the masturbatory sex often occurs in large groups, increasing generalised bonding. Female masturbation is helped along by the fact that their clitorises ‘are larger and more externalised than in most mammals’. Well, here, comparison with humans is instructive:
… while the weight of a young adolescent female bonobo “is maybe half” that of a human teenager, she has a clitoris that is “three times bigger than the human equivalent, and visible enough to waggle unmistakably as she walks.
All quotes here are from Wikipedia, unless otherwise stated. The most common sexual combo is female-female. Their face-to-face, body-to-body interactions are referred to as genito-genital (G-G) rubbing, which is often accompanied by loud noises, hopefully of pleasure.
So, while female-female masturbation is the most practised sexual behaviour of the species, enhancing bonding against any male threats, male-male masturbation is also a regular thing:
The most common form of male–male mounting is similar to that of a heterosexual mounting: one of the males sits “passively on his back [with] the other male thrusting on him”, with the penises rubbing together because of both males’ erections
Clearly sexual activity is encouraged and valued as the most essential feature of bonobo society, and is practised in a variety of ways – penis-fencing, rump-rubbing, genital massaging, oral sex (among males) and, as mentioned, tongue-kissing. Adult-child sex is more common in males than females, though there’s no penetration. Is this because they’re avoiding pain, or because they know the connection with pregnancy? The general scientific consensus is that non-human species engage in sex based on instinct, hormones and such – that’s to say, more or less unconsciously without being aware of possible or likely consequences. I’m not entirely convinced, especially re our closest relatives, but how can this be tested? In any case, regardless of all this sex play, bonobo birth rates are no higher than those of chimps.
Unsurprisingly bonobo social relations are just as complex as those of chimps, and perhaps also humans, with personal animosities, rivalries and close friendships within and between genders, and the fact that infanticide in bonobo society hasn’t been observed isn’t proof that it hasn’t happened – after all, we’ve only known of the existence of bonobos for a little under a century. Still, bonobos are definitely different, and in what I would call an inspiring way. You could say that sex becomes a feel-good strategy, but also a way of diminishing any sense of male ownership of offspring. As Wikipedia puts it:
The strategy of bonobo females mating with many males may be a counterstrategy to infanticide because it confuses paternity. If male bonobos cannot distinguish their own offspring from others, the incentive for infanticide essentially disappears. This is a reproductive strategy that seems specific to bonobos; infanticide is observed in all other great apes except orangutans. Bonobos engage in sexual activity numerous times a day.
Anyway, enough of sex, let’s explore violence. Chimps, as mentioned, tend to be hostile to those not in their own troupe, and even patrol their own borders, looking for trouble. Very West Side Story. And yet, to my surprise, bonobos, are more violent in general.
In the wild, among males, bonobos are more aggressive than chimpanzees, having higher rates of aggressive acts, about three times as much. Although, male chimpanzees are more likely to be aggressive to a lethal degree than male bonobos which are more likely to engage in more frequent, yet less intense squabbling. There is also more female to male aggression with bonobos than there is with chimpanzees. Female bonobos are also more aggressive than female chimpanzees, in general. Both bonobos and chimpanzees exhibit physical aggression more than 100 times as often as humans do.
All of this sounds interesting, but ‘aggression’ might be a little more difficult to define than we think. In humans, for example, accusatory or bullying language, or the sharing of images, can be used aggressively without anything physical occurring. It has even been known to cause the victim to commit suicide. We have subtler and often more effective ways to make others suffer, and ‘non-physical’ aggression may have a physical, even deadly, impact. It is also a way of getting around laws prohibiting physical violence.
In any case, surely a major reason for the supposed greater physical aggression of chimps and bonobos, and doubtless other apes, compared to humans, is how we ‘count’ aggression. Is carpet-bombing physical aggression? Nuclear warfare? The wholesale slaughter of the Jews and the Congolese? The massacres of the ‘Crusades’? How can we not count remote, push-button slaughter, or starving people to death behind walls, or burning them to death in buildings, as physical aggression? Methinks there’s need for a rethink.
So let’s turn to something less controversial. Like all the great apes, bonobos pass the self-awareness mirror test, and it’s clear that the variations in their vocalisations have meaning, though whether they rise to the standard of a proto-language is a matter of definition. They also use many meaningful hand gestures.
A famous example of a bonobo being taught to communicate using a keyboard, and to respond effectively to whole sentences, is that of Kanzi:
Kanzi’s vocabulary consisted of more than 500 English words, and he had comprehension of around 3,000 spoken English words… Kanzi is also known for learning by observing people trying to teach his mother; Kanzi started doing the tasks that his mother was taught just by watching, some of which his mother had failed to learn….
Kanzi was also taught how to make simple stone tools, though he found a method of making them in his own bonoboesque way. There seems no doubt that effective rapport between bonobos and humans will benefit both species.
Finally, there’s the ecological importance of bonobos. They’re essentially one of the two apex species of their region, the other being elephants. Both species are frugivorous, and their ecological role is vital:
It is estimated that during its life, each bonobo will ingest and disperse nine tons of seeds, from more than 91 species of lianas, grass, trees and shrubs. These seeds travel for about 24 hours in the bonobo digestive tract, which can transfer them over several kilometers (mean 1.3 km; max: 4.5 km), far from their parents, where they will be deposited intact in their faeces. These dispersed seeds remain viable, germinating better and more quickly than unpassed seeds. For those seeds, diplochory with dung-beetles (Scarabaeidae) improves post-dispersal survival.
Diplochory means two-phase seed dispersal, using more than one vector or carrier.
Anyway, I think that’s more than enough info for one post. The Wikipedia article on bonobos makes for a very solid book chapter, with 178 references, so far. And it ends nicely with informing us all of the annual World Bonobo Day, established in 2017. No prizes should be given for guessing the date!
References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
Joseph Henrich, The WEIRDest people in the world: how the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous, 2021
creeping towards matriarchy?
Khasi, India – a matriarchy of over a million
Listening to stuff about the macro world of general relativity and the micro world of quantum mechanical physics and their complete separateness and apparent incompatibility, about which I know so little, has taken me scurrying back to bonobos and how exactly they came to be matriarchal, which might be a simpler question, or at the very least a less mathematical one. I’ve doubtless been here before, but it’s an important question to dwell on, I think, at a time when ‘macho man’ Putin is running out of non-nuclear options and Trump’s bully-boy bullshit is becoming more tediously unhinged and unpopular – if that isn’t just wishful thinking.
The most obvious, if partial, explanation is that bonobos aren’t big meat-eaters, or perhaps more importantly, hunters, as they inhabit a densely forested region of the southern Congo, enough to provide a rich frugivorous diet, with the addition of the odd small animal that happens to wander into their territory. The various sub-species of chimps inhabit mostly savanna regions and eat quite a lot more meat, mostly caught by males. That’s to say, they actively hunt. Yet even as I write this I’m a bit skeptical – it all sounds too neat. Bonobo females aren’t as strong as the males, though the difference isn’t great. They’ve become dominant due to group relations. That’s to say, female-female relations. And how that came about is a bit of a mystery – at least to me. The sharing of mothering duties? All that mutual masturbation? More research required.
AINL (Artificial Intelligence Never Lies) covers much the same ground as me. Bonobos are matriarchal because of sexually modulated female bonding, which overcomes the slight difference in size, and because of environmental/ecological (and so dietary) factors. But of course this doesn’t explain why this sexualised female bonding came about. And, as ever, I’m primarily interested in how we humans can move in that direction, given, for example, that we’ve long abandoned hunting for our own food, and with the human world becoming more mechanised, we’re abandoning the need for physical labour. The male-female divide is closing fast, methinks. I’m not even sure of my own gender anymore.
Still, there are those who seem to argue that the human norm is, and must be, patriarchy. Others send a confusing message. Take this 2019 article from Medium.com (linked below) with the forbidding (and depressing) title ‘Bonobos and the myth of matriarchy’. No, it doesn’t argue that bonobo matriarchy is a myth – instead it seems to argue that, pace bonobos, no human societies have ever been fully matriarchal, so…. let’s stop trying….? Perhaps not, as the last line is – ‘Be a bonobo.’ Which is ridiculous. I want to be a human, in a matriarchal society, or at the very least, a far less patriarchal one. And there’s no doubt that, in the WEIRD world, we’re going in that direction, at a snail’s pace from the perspective of one life (my own).
Interestingly, in the same year, 2019, another article reports fulsomely on six current matriarchies – in China, Costa Rica, Kenya, Ghana, Indonesia and India. Are they ‘full’ matriarches? Are there any ‘full’ patriarchies? That game can be played endlessly. Lions used to be described as patriarchal, but then it was pointed out, or discovered, that it was the females who made the decisions, while the head male was there to defend the pride (from what I’m not sure – who’s going to attack a pack of lions? Other lions maybe).
Anyway, it wouldn’t bother me if there was no such thing as a ‘total’ matriarchy, in humans or other species, I’d just like to see humans as more matriarchal than patriarchal, with more – substantially more – political and financial power in the hands of females rather than males. High hopes, eh? Maybe in a century or two, if we survive.
References
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/
a wee piece on monogamy
So, back to the question of monogamy. Is Homo sapiens a monogamous species? If they are, how long have they been so? We know that neither chimps nor bonobos are monogamous (it’s very rare in primates generally), and we know very little – almost nothing – of the social lives of those extinct species that fill in the gaps between ourselves and Pan paniscus. Nor do we know anything much about the social lives of our own species going back 50,000 years and more. A fairly standard view, it seems to me, is that the rise of agriculture and the stable settlements that were part of this change promoted monogamous ‘ownership’ just as it promoted land ownership. But, as Joseph Henrich argues in The weirdest people in the world, powerful or large-scale landowners could also become large-scale people-owners too, in terms of wives and slaves. Polygyny was an elitist cultural thing, even if it has faint links with our gorilla ancestors.
So it’s fair to say that monogamy is more a cultural than a natural phenomenon, and so subject to variation. We can see this cultural effect in terms of our obsession with lineage and inheritance, generally along male lines. A culturally created patriarchal monogamy, with various exceptions, increasingly in the modern WEIRD world.
The general acceptance of monogamous norms puts pressure on individuals, as well as affecting their worldview, as they may, often unconsciously, take on the concept of a ‘right partner’, especially for breeding purposes. This goes along with ‘hearth and home’, much like the nest-building of most avian species.
I’m trying not to write this from an anti-monogamy perspective – frankly I’m not sure where I stand on the topic. Laissez faire might be the best description. Nowadays, again in the WEIRD world, we’re more conscious about how we’ve come to arrange things – nuclear families, home-making, and their alternatives, single parents, kibbutzim, two mums, two dads, and so forth, and we can even question the hearth and home arrangements, given our knowledge of bonobos in particular, with their broader supportive communities. Could it be that earlier human communities, those of Homo erectus and their immediate ancestors, were also more communal, in terms of sexual activity and child-rearing? Less possessive and jealous? Will we ever know?
And is our greater consciousness about monogamy having the effect of making us less monogamous? Bucking the trend? Is this really the best way to raise children? Of course it’s still generally seen as the norm, and the best – single-parent homes are ‘broken monogamies’, half-families. But we’re constantly evolving, learning new ways, considering other species – bonobos again. Their kids are so well-adjusted (funny expression, that).
We’re stuck in our own time, and history can’t teach us the future. Keeping options open is surely a key to survival so let’s not condemn other ways, let’s keep on searching and admiring, not just the best in human efforts, glimpses of utopia, but in those of other species….
References
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0140175079900010
Joseph Henrich, The weirdest people in the world: how the west became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous, 2020
stuff on sexual selection, and our humanity
As perhaps mentioned, I’ve started reading The descent of man, or to be accurate, I started reading it a while ago, then stopped, what with all the other pleasurable and thought-provoking reading I’ve been doing. In fact one of those books is Matt Ridley’s Birds, sex and beauty: the extraordinary implications of Charles Darwin’s strangest idea, to give its full title, and it’s maybe a bit of a spoiler, because I’ve heard that The descent contains a section on sexual selection, that ‘strangest idea’ aforementioned, an idea that, as Ridley tells me, was found more questionable than general evolution by many scientists of his time, and even afterwards. Wallace, who developed his evolutionary theory independently of Darwin, and became a close associate afterwards, was quite skeptical, along with most of Darwin’s other backers, and Ridley, quite rightly I think, points to the reason. Evolution was obviously a rather serious assault on religion – and is still felt that way – whereas sexual selection was an assault on patriarchy, though many of its detractors may have been oblivious of the fact. Patriarchy’s so insidious that many people still think it’s normal! Duh…
So what exactly is sexual selection? Well, just about everyone points to the obvious case of the peacock, with his extravagant tail feathers. Can such a stunningly colourful but ungainly mass to drag around you be anything but a hindrance? It’s kind of exhausting just to look at them. Can a peacock actually fly? Well, yes, but certainly not like an eagle. And how does it sneak up on its prey? Does it only eat blind mice? Actually they’re omnivores, but probably easier to be veggo with all that get-up. And of course they can be prey as well as predators, and you should be able to guess the rest – one minute you’re a mate, next you’re dead meat. It’s just a matter of getting things in the right order.
So sexual selection is about males so impressing females, whether by looks, dancing displays or some other spectacle, that the female offers herself happily, or complacently, to him. And males are often in competition with other males for the honour, the point being that it’s the female who sexually selects. This type of selection goes on in species of birds, fish (eg guppies), insects (eg fruit flies), mammals (eg elephant seals) and reptiles (eg most lizards). It also goes on in humans (eg party hardcore, referenced below), but not generally for the purpose of reproduction. As for bonobos – well, that’s another story, and it’s complicated, much as with humans.
So what about humans? We like to think we’re too complex and sophisticated for that sort of categorisation, and anyway, we in the WEIRD (non-Catholic) world don’t connect sex so tightly with reproduction. Even so, when we do decide on reproduction, we surely, male and female, do it on the basis of having selected, more or less mutually, the best partner available. This is of course a best-case scenario – we can be fooled, perhaps by our hormones, into being convinced that this person will be the best father/mother for our child/children, not to mention a variety of other scenarios which result in pregnancy. If we think of sexual selection in terms of pairing rather than pregnancy, it may be that neoteny, the preservation of youthful characteristics, including by artificial means – make-up, cosmetic surgery, mode of dress and so forth – has played a role, but this doesn’t appear to be a scenario in which only the female does the selecting. Certainly it’s less clear ‘who’s zoomin who’, if anyone. Darwin, I think wisely, considered sexual selection in humans has worked in both ways, with hairlessness in females being selected for by males, and males’ reduced hair ‘going along for the ride’ to some degree (also because of ‘genetic correlation’, though Darwin didn’t know about genes, and so could not consider genotype-phenotype examples), while reduced sexual dimorphism and, in contrast, the greater difference between the voices of adult males and females, are being selected for by their opposites. The reduced sexual dimorphism argues for greater monogamy (compare gorillas). Even so, females may in general be selecting for height, muscularity, and deeper voices. I give up.
Seriously, the scenario is complex for humans, which is to be expected. From Wikipedia:
In a study measuring female attraction to males with varying levels of masculinity, it was established that women had a general masculinity preference for men’s voices, and that the preference for masculinity was greater in the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle than in the non-fertile phase. There is further evidence from the same study that in fertile stages of the menstrual cycle, women also had a preference for other masculine traits such as body size, facial shape, and dominant behavior, which are indicators of both fertility and health. This study did not exclude males with feminine traits from being selected, however, as feminine traits in men indicate a higher probability of long-term relationship commitment, and may be one of several evolutionary strategies.
I don’t want to think too much about male dominant behaviour being indicative of fertility or health – especially mental health – but this finding that the menstrual cycle affects female preference seems just too ‘beyond our control’ for my liking, which isn’t to say it’s not true. As other sources have pointed out, there’s a sort of more-or-less understandable ‘muddle’ between selecting for ‘tough guys’, in both physical and emotional senses, or for caring-and-sharing softies who’ll be reliable providers – they hope. But isn’t that typical of women – they can never make up their effing minds.
Clearly, though, there are two strategies that are more or less blindly operating in humans. A video by ‘Brainstorm’, linked below, puts it neatly:
Sexual selection is an extremely powerful tool to explain much of evolutionary change in behaviour in animals – in humans it becomes a bit more complicated – we’re neither clearly a tournament species [males fighting for dominance (e.g gorillas)] with huge extremes re sexual dimorphism, nor are we sexually identical in behaviour, aggression or life expectancy… we do see dimorphism in bone structure, muscle mass and levels of aggression…
These male-female differences are not extreme, and we might just be able, with work, to make them less extreme. Wouldn’t it be great if we could actually work toward this. The sexual dimorphism among bonobos is minimal, and it would make sense, given their society, that it is diminishing, though we have no substantial evidence that this is so. Humans, of course, still have a way to go, given all the warfare and violent confrontations that are still occurring.
Anyway, once again, vive les bonobos. We have so much to learn…
References
Charles Darwin, The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex, 1871
Matt Ridley, Birds, sex and beauty, 2025
professor Dave insists…
chimps is me
There’s a science promoter in the USA who calls himself ‘Professor Dave’, and who has, in recent times, been trying to give another science communicator and general ‘vodcaster’, if that’s the term, Sabine Hossenfelder, a very hard time, calling her, rather meaninglessly to my mind, a ‘fraud’. Hossenfelder, whose videos covering a whole variety of topics besides physics I generally enjoy, has, it seems, chosen to ignore him, which I think is the best approach.
Recently this Professor Dave (I suspect he uses this moniker to indicate that he has more expertise and authority than your average bloke, but ‘really’ he’s just like any Tom, Dick or Dave) has tried upping the ante by collecting six physicists to whip Hossenfelder into shape, or perhaps just to whip her. Hopefully she’ll just keep ignoring it all.
Hossenfelder is a German theoretical physicist who has written a couple of books and co-written another, and has an impressive Wikipedia profile, referenced below. It makes no mention of fraudulent activities, proven or suspected.
I’m not inclined to investigate Professor Dave’s background, but I have no reason to believe he’s not a real professor, though probably not of physics, as he has spent much of his time debunking creationists and flat-earthers, as explained in an interview he did on the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast recently. I’ve also heard him on a vodcast with Gutsick Gibbon (aka Erika, a favourite science communicator of mine), criticising and mocking creationists.
I have no idea why Prof Dave is so obsessed with Hossenfelder, and why he has gathered such a team to ‘expose’ or ‘debunk’ her, and I have no appetite for listening to this six-person attack. I do, of course, wonder at the purpose of it all. Modern theoretical physics/astrophysics is, I know, a highly contested field, and has been for quite some time. I don’t pretend to have any expertise whatsoever in the field, though I’ve read books by Leonard Susskind, Sean Carroll and Lee Smolin – and I’m regularly in the Einsteinium League on brilliant.org, so there you go.
So I’m writing this, though of course nobody will read it, just to get my irritation with this bloke off my chest, and because surely enough is enough with this Hoffenfelder-bashing – and just to give an idea of how low Prof Dave is prepared to go, he describes her as ‘a disgusting fraud peddling propaganda for fascist oligarchs’. Does one laugh or cry?
With this kind of introduction I’ve chosen not to listen to the 3.5 hour video attacking Hossenfelder. I did write a comment to Prof Dave, basically saying WTF in a polite way, and he responded by describing me as a moron – how did he know? And that, of course, I should listen to the video that he curated. Well, as much as I’m interested in physics, and science generally, I’d rather cut my dick off.
All of this stuff makes me think of my favourite topic – bonobos. I do wonder how many of these Hossenfelder-bashing physicists are female, because my impression of Prof Dave is that there’s nothing of the bonobo in him, he’s very much of a chimp, a wannabe alpha male chimp at that. Insulting people comes as second nature to him. As mentioned, he called me a moron. Of course I’m not a moron, but much more importantly, I’ve never called anyone else a moron in my life. Well, maybe as an adolescent, but then people grow up.
Finally, I want to go back to Prof Dave’s bizarre claims about Hossenfelder’s peddling ‘fascist propaganda’, which I read for the first time today. This is more than just repellently ludicrous stuff, it’s quite unhinged and raises questions about the man’s mental health. More importantly, it makes me worry for Hossenfelder’s safety. I believe she resides in Germany, and would certainly have no interest in visiting the US, especially in these times.
Vive les bonobos!
References
on sex, consent, offspring and bonobos
So all this Epstein/Maxwell/Trump stuff has been dominating the news, even here to some extent, and it obviously raises questions more generally about sex, power and all that pabulum. In my novel In Elizabeth, published centuries ago, I described how the main character, Danny, was, on his 16th birthday, asked by his 14-year old girlfriend, Anne-Marie (let’s call her), if he wanted to have sex with her. A gift. She was the most beautiful girl Danny had ever seen, and she assured him that she had done it before. So they did it, on Anne-Marie’s parents’ double bed. The whole thing lasted only a few minutes, with the removal of as few clothes as possible, and was interrupted by her little brother, whom she was baby-sitting. “Ummm, I’m telling mum’, he said. Fortunately, he was talked out of it, and yes, this was autobiographical.
I had no idea at the time whether what we were doing was legal or not, and frankly couldn’t have cared less. I should also say that my sex life was pretty well all downhill from there.
Much later, after this novel was published, a fellow teacher, who had read it, questioned me about this sex scene. Was it really true, she asked, looking mildly disturbed. That was perhaps the first time I ever considered the ethics or legality of the situation. Even so, I didn’t bother to look into it. As to Anne-Marie, very shortly afterwards, she abandoned me for a much bigger kid who, seeing her beauty, kept forcing me into ‘play fights’ in which, of course, he bested me. I was never built to be an alpha (though my studies have taught me that the alpha doesn’t have to be the biggest). I never saw Anne-Marie again. I hope she did all right, she was nice.
So now I’m looking into those legalities, and I’ve learned about Romeo and Juliet clauses. AI again:
In Australian states with Romeo and Juliet clauses, also known as close-in-age exemptions, consensual sexual activity between teenagers of similar ages is not criminalised, even if they are below the general age of consent. These clauses exist to recognize that adolescent sexual development is a natural process. The specific age differences allowed under these clauses vary by jurisdiction, but generally allow for a maximum age gap of two years.
the legislation in all states and territories states that children and young people below the age of consent are not considered by law to have the capacity to consent, even if the other requirements for consent appear to be met (e.g. understanding what activity they are agreeing to, voluntarily agreeing to or suggesting sexual activity without being coerced or intimidated, communicating their agreement)
So, considering that both Anne-Marie and I were under 17, we didn’t have the legal capacity to consent to what we both consented to, but since there was no sexual assault involved, the act, which occurred a little over 53 years ago, would not be pursued in criminal or civil terms due to statute of limitations provisions. And yet we did both consent, being really quite capacious for our age, if not quite legally.
Again, the age of consent in Germany is 14, but understandably there are conditions attached, relating to age differences and any sign of coercion. But what I remember reading, and I do hope it’s true, is that sex education is a vital part of their school curriculum. This of course should be a feature of every country’s education system, as well as the availability of contraceptives.
This isn’t an issue for bonobos of course. Humans can get pregnant all year round, unlike other apes and animals generally. Can’t something be done to make us less fertile? And while we’re at it, to make us less combative and more bonobosexual? Wouldn’t it be great if such a word caught on. Join the bonobosexual club. Mutual masturbation is their theme, and they seem to be built for it. Meanwhile, in those parts of humanity turned backward by religion, it’s a crime to have any sex outside of marriage, that weird invention.
Not a problem in Elizabeth, though, the town of my youth. The problem there was ignorance, or innocence. Young teens following their instincts, then getting pregnant. A massive, life-changing experience. That was in the seventies, and I can only hope that teachers and parents are now educating their kids about rumpy-pumpy consequences.
Anyway, out of all this, the mystery of our unique proneness to pregnancy (the Guinness Book of Records claims the highest number of births to one individual is 69, in 27 confinements – as if – and there are claims almost as unbelievable), is something I’d like to explore. Bonobos and chimps generally give birth to no more than five or six little ones in a lifetime. It’s all to do with hormones, pheromones and being ‘in season’. Why are human animals so different? When did that happen? What about Neanderthals, and earlier hominins?
To be continued, perhaps…