Humans are not meant to be Monogamous - Christopher Ryan: If You Want Fidelity, Get a Dog

We've been told that sexual monogamy comes naturally to our species. But how does this square with the facts: fewer and fewer couples marry, divorce is increasing and marriages are haunted by the twin spectres of adultery and flagging libido. What if our past is actually one of egalitarian promiscuity? What if monogamy doesn't come naturally to us and never has? And, if having an affair would make your marriage last, would you?

Christopher Ryan is an American psychologist who contends that much of what we've been told about our species is in fact untrue, particularly when it comes to sexuality. The bottom line, he says, is monogamy is unnatural: we're just not designed to have sex with the same person over a lifetime. He cheekily suggests that had Darwin had a better sex life our theories of human sexual relations would be completely different.

This session was chaired by the ABC's Robyn Williams and was part of the 2011 Festival of Dangerous Ideas at the Sydney Opera House.

Christopher Ryan is a psychologist and co -author of New York Times best-seller, "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality". Christopher contributes to Psychology Today and The Huffington Post.

Robyn Williams is a science journalist and broadcaster, and the host of ABC Radio National's The Science show. In 1987 he was named a National Living Treasure. In 1993, Robyn was the first journalist elected as a Fellow Member of the Australian Academy of Science. He was a Visiting Fellow at Balliol College Oxford in 1995-96. Robyn has written more than 10 books, the latest being a novel.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• fodi
• christopherryan
• full

[rpcrazy]

it might help GE but it doesn't help us...i wasn't caught on this until he said that. Atomic family structure a social engineered phenomena? probably not...but forced down our throats because it's profitable? MOST DEFINITELY

[drawnsequence]

@Jeffersonwazright Agreed. He's remarkably nervous. He just needs humor that makes you agree that you understand the subject matter. If all you're doing is being the voice that presents facts, you needn't worry about if the attendees find it funny. They're a relative few compared to the majority. Just present a case that is fascinating to you, and if it's worth even a single damn to the majority, they will find it fascinating too.

11:30 Is that shaking or am I? Both.

[omgwtfbbqstfu]

Sad thing is he does what most charlatans do, pepper just enough facts in there to sell the lie. He makes assertions that have zero basis, the idea that people were stupid and lacked jealousy before agriculture is simply naive, he's pandering to people who think this fits their political ideology/outlook, you can choose your opinions, you can't choose your facts thoug

One is better off reading something like a billion wicked thoughts by Ogi Ogas , Sai Gaddam as it is based on actual research.

[borisattva]

important thing to understand that none of those are worse or better than others, they are just traits, that are evidenced in nature. all these traits are still present in nature and having not been weeded out through evolution, makes sense ot believe they all carry strengths, pushing their carriers forward and along with evolution.

there is no rule that one should feel compelled to follow but their own.

equally important is to not impose their rule on others.

[borisattva]

on some primitive, animalistic level, this makes sense.

while humans are undeniably animals, i can still see a distinction between individuals to whom this applied more than others, and some not at all.

after all, just as many animal species are observed to exhibit alternative sexual behavior, from homosexuality to promiscuity and infidelity, there are those that exhibit abstinence, mating for life, etc.

[Jeffersonwazright]

I like this material but I think he tries to do the comic thing a little too much. Comedy should be less frequent in science- but I am not saying it should not be there.

[Jeffersonwazright]

@joemoe23 No. We are animals with consciousness.

[joemoe23]

We aren't animals, we are consciousness experiencing this reality in an animal form. Humans are animals, but at our core, we are consciousness. Other than that I agree, we aren't monogamous by nature. Of course, that's a dicey conversation because so much depends on whether or not we can afford to be sluts anymore. But instinctively we are sluts.

[TheEFIC2012]

Great video Christopher. Very easy going and informative. Cheers!!