>>>  Laatst gewijzigd: 2 februari 2024   >>>  Naar www.emo-level-8.nl  
Ik

Notities bij boeken

Start Filosofie Kennis Normatieve rationaliteit Waarden in de praktijk Mens en samenleving Techniek

Notities

Brandon is klinisch psycholoog en sekstherapeut. Ze is zelf getrouwd, staat er. En dan toch schrijven in termen van 'ons' en 'we'. Tja, dan verwacht ik eigenlijk al niet veel kritiek op de monogamie meer, vind je het gek. Brandon blijkt een auteur die haar eigen waardeoordelen niet door heeft.

Het is zo'n boek waarin de hele tijd in termen van evolutionaire biologie en evolutionaire psychologie gedacht wordt van waaruit dan lijnen doorgetrokken worden naar wat normaal voor mensen is of zou moeten zijn. Brandon waarschuwt steeds dat het ingewikkelder is dan dat, maar doet daar zelf niets mee. Haar uitgangspunt is dat monogamie geweldig is, al zegt ze zelf dat dat niet 'van nature' zo is. Precies op dát punt doet ze uiteindelijk niets met de natuur, want dat komt haar vast niet goed uit; allerlei andere evolutionaire zaken worden wel zonder meer doorgetrokken naar menselijk gedrag.

Voorkant Brandon 'Monogamy - The untold story' Marianne BRANDON
Monogamy - The untold story
Santa Barbara, Cal. etc.: Praeger, 2010, 186 blzn.; EISBN-13: 978 03 1338 5742

(xiii) Introduction

"Monogamy: The Untold Story does not imply the end of marriage as we know it. It does not mean that lovers cannot bond for a lifetime, nor does it mean that a happy and sensuous long-term commitment is impossible. It does not mean the demise of the family unit. And it certainly is not an excuse for men and women to act out sexually in ways that are hurtful to themselves, their partners, or their children. Instead, Monogamy: The Untold Story suggests that we recognize the limits of our current understanding of adult sexuality; we honor the truth of our animal heritage; we stop shaming each other for natural instincts and inclinations, and we adjust our understanding of modern-day intimacy to accommodate these realities. In this way, we encourage each other in evolving our feminine natures as well as our masculine sides, we support our biology as well as our intellects, and we embrace rather than pathologize our instincts. It means that monogamy is a choice, not an indisputable fact between lovers. As humans with powerful logical minds and advanced neurophysiology, we don’t have to blindly follow our mammalian impulses. We can rise above our more animalistic drives. However, it is only in taking into account these more basic realities that we can stop blaming ourselves — and our partners — when sex loses its luster. We can cease feeling ashamed because of a 'low libido'. We can put an end to blaming our lover’s sexual style for all that’s wrong with our sex lives. Monogamy: The Untold Story provides an alternative explanation for these practically inevitable challenges of intimacy. With this understanding, we can approach relationships from a new mind-set, armed with powerful techniques aimed at supporting a satisfying sex life over time." [mijn nadruk] (xiii-xiv)

[Oe wauw, als we trouw zijn aan onze dierlijke afkomst, zullen we monogamie moeten afschaffen. O nee, daarna zegt ze weer dat we onze zoogdierimpulsen niet zonder meer hoeven te volgen. Er zal wel weer de nodige evlutionaire psychologie en zo aan te pas komen, vrees ik. We hoeven hier dus geen maatschappijkritiek te verwachten, geen verzet tegen het huwelijk of tegen het kerngezin als leefwijze.]

(1) Part I - The truth about monogamy

[Alleen zo'n titel al. Iemand die de waarheid in pacht heeft. ]

(3) Chapter One - The monogamy illusion

"Most humans aren’t naturally monogamous. Monogamy is actually extraordinarily rare among mammals. We know this from studying animals: less than 15 percent of primates and 3 percent of mammals are monogamous. We know this from studying humans: of 185 societies, only 29 formally restricted their members to monogamy. And in those societies that consider themselves monogamous, affairs and extramarital liaisons occur regularly. Even the human body offers clues to our natural mating patterns: many of our sex characteristics conflict with those of monogamous species. In fact, there is no evidence from biology or anthropology that monogamy is natural or normal for humans!" [mijn nadruk] (3)

[Hier dus niet alleen een verwijzing naar biologische feiten, maar ook naar cultureel-antropologische feiten.]

"Thus far, the monogamy debate has been largely focused as a moral issue, and everyone has an opinion. It’s a cutthroat moral battle out there.
Some say those who aren’t monogamous:
• are selfish.
• want too much out of sex and marriage.
• have no will power, no integrity, or no morals.
• think sex is too important or overrated.
• don’t care about their children.
In contrast, others say:
• people change over time, and marriage to one person for a lifetime can interfere with self-growth.
• people can continue to love each other, but not desire each other sexually.
• people stay together because they are dependent on one another, not because they love one another.
• people embrace monogamy because they don’t believe they could find another partner.
• sex is difficult to enjoy with the same partner over time.
Who is right? After researching this topic for years, I boldly answer, 'No one'."(3-4)

[Dat is niet dapper of brutaal, dat is: geen standpunten in willen nemen. Ik lees dat laatste als: Iedereen mag het zelf weten, we willen niet moralistisch worden, we gaan geen maatschappijkritiek leveren op conservatieve opvattingen, als iemand maar gelukkig is, etc. etc. Alles op het individuele niveau zoals typisch voor therapeuten? Weer geen vragen over waarom mensen eigenlijk voelen wat ze voelen? Is het zo eerlijk wanneer mensen zeggen dat ze een behoefte voelen aan monogamie? Ik vind: de tweede groep heeft gelijk.]

"This open discussion of sexual pleasure and satisfaction [in de vrouwenbeweging bijvoorbeeld - GdG] has paved the way to explore the feasibility of monogamy as a long-term mating strategy in the 21st century. But while monogamy remains our cultural ideal, science and social statistics demonstrate that it is not a likely mating pattern for humans. Instead, the majority of Westerners either divorce, have affairs, struggle in their sexual relationship, or live in sexless marriages.
In spite of these challenges, we are a romantic culture that admires great love stories. We adore the idea of long-term love. And that’s a beautiful thing, because monogamy remains a great idea. Whether or not monogamy is natural, there are numerous benefits to a long-term coupling — and the majority of couples strive for it. In fact, keeping a marriage faithful is a reason many couples find themselves in my therapy room. I have spent many years helping my patients achieve these goals. Making monogamy work is challenging in part because, as a culture, we approach it unrealistically. That is, when we assume it’s natural, we do not make space for the inevitable struggles inherent in an unnatural process. And this is why I wrote this book. In acknowledging the realities of monogamy, I hope you will be better equipped to achieve it."(5)

[Let weer op het 'we'. Oké, dus Brandon wijst alleen op de feiten over dat monogamie niet 'natuurlijk' is om duidelijk te maken dat het streven ernaar dus niet zo gemakkelijk is. En zij wil er bij helpen om monogamie te bereiken. Ze vindt monogamie een geweldig idee, want we zijn een romantische cultuur. Kritiekloos wordt weer een normatief standpunt ingenomen dat overeenkomt met de standaard maatschappelijke opvattingen. Dat zegt eigenlijk al genoeg. Weer eens: therapie als de smeerolie in de krakende machine van een hopeloos achterhaald idee.]

"Most of us define monogamy as being sexually faithful to one partner for a lifetime. But this is actually not the true definition! Quite literally, monogamy means to be married to one person — nothing more, nothing less. Marriage is defined as a social institution involving a legal commitment between two people. It is fascinating that neither of these definitions mentions love or sex. Yet love, and making love, are what marriage and monogamy are ultimately all about — aren’t they? Apparently not."(7-8)

[Het gaat mij om het idee exclusieve relaties. Dat valt natuurlijk niet samen met monogamie en huwelijk. Waarom heeft zij het de hele tijd over getrouwde mensen en niet over samenwonende stellen? Is this America?]

"Where did the ideal of sexual monogamy originate? If it’s so hard to attain, why did we idealize it in the first place? After all, most of us don’t attempt to beat the odds and achieve such extraordinary tasks on a regular basis in other aspects of our lives. We can gain clues to answer this question by observing the animal kingdom. Short-term monogamy is a very good idea from an evolutionary perspective." [mijn nadruk] (9)

[Nee, hè, niet weer.]

"But humans have interpreted marriage — and monogamy — very differently than Mother Nature did. And that’s because humans have consciousness, integrity, and compassion. Ending love relationships every few years feels heartless and cruel — not to mention the fact that lovers often remain emotionally attached, even though they may not be passionately attached or still in love. As a result, humans took Mother Nature’s masterful short-term mating strategy and turned it into a long-term one. We changed the rules on Mother Nature. Rather than being monogamous for just a few years, we became monogamous for life! And up until recently, lifelong monogamy has been a magnificent solution. Marriage has helped evolve our societies into the thriving metropolises we enjoy today. It has been an amazingly efficient and effective way for our species to prosper. The family unit provides a safe and secure home base for all its members to thrive." [mijn nadruk] (9-10)

[Natuur gaat maar zo ver, zeker. Maar meteen komen nu de stiekeme waardeoordelen gebaseerd op gevoelens van nu (het gaat overigens weer over monogamie en huwelijken): het is harteloos om een liefdesrelatie om de zoveel jaar te verbreken, geliefden kunnen elkaar niet loslaten. Alsof dat allemaal niet aangeleerd gedrag is dat ook heel anders had kunnen zijn. En een langer huwelijk wordt nu meteen een monogaam huwelijk voor het hele leven - waarom niet voor vijf jaar of tien jaar? En de stelling dat het huwelijk de ontwikkeling van de samenleving heeft gestimuleerd met al die positieve waarderingswoorden is ook zoiets: ongewenste zwangerschappen, scheidingen, eenoudergezinnen, gebroken gezinnen, de ellende in de stad, armoede bestaan blijkbaar niet. Zo efficiënt en effectief was het huwelijk blijkbaar ook weer niet.]

"Today, we want marriage rather than need it. And as a result of our social growth and the opportunities now presenting themselves, maintaining a monogamous relationship has become more complex as well."(10)

[Maar wat we zeggen te willen wordt voor een groot deel bepaald door onze omgeving. Willen we het dus wel echt?]

"Instincts are innate responses. They are inherited from generation to generation because they assist the survival of the species. Human instincts are easiest to observe in our core emotions and bodily functions such as the needs for sleep, sex, and food. Interestingly, the more evolved we become as a species, the more we try to rise above or control our instincts. For example, we attempt to adjust our sleeping and eating patterns based on conscious desires rather than respecting our natural physiological drives. We do the same with sex, by expecting ourselves to comfortably adjust to monogamy."M(10)

[Ik heb het nooit zinvol gevonden om het over 'instinct' te hebben als het over mensen gaat, juist omdat alle lichamelijke invloeden door mensen ingebed worden in de rest van hun bestaan als mens, hun geest, hun omgeving, hun geschiedenis. Natúúrlijk kunnen we die invloeden voor een deel overstijgen of sturen, ook de zin in seks. Maar of dat nu zo vanzelfsprekend in de richting gaat van aanpassing aan monogamie valt te betwijfelen.]

"We cannot will ourselves to fall in love with men if we innately respond to women, or vice-versa. Nonetheless, our conscious minds engage in power plays with our innate responses. But, when our minds pick a fight with our bodies, our bodies typically win in the end. Thus, when our instincts, drives, and inclinations are deemed unacceptable, they don’t dissolve. Instead, one of several outcomes is likely to occur. They can resurface in the mind, such as in the form of obsession. This phenomenon is called the suppression effect. It refers to the paradox that when we try to stop an internal process, it often intensifies, and we simply become even more focused on it. Otherwise, when we try to suppress our drives or inclinations, they can resurface physically in the form of a bodily symptom. Either way, when we attempt to consciously control unconscious processes, we risk a potent battle of wills. Natural yearnings and proclivities can exert a powerful influence over our emotions and behavior; and they can cause us to feel and act in ways that are contrary to what we want to believe about ourselves. So what is our unconscious mind, and how does it play a role in our sexual experience?"(10-11)

[Oké, nu gaan we dus ineens richting de psychoanalyse? Je kunt allerlei verlangens en zo natuurlijk ook verdringen, dat is waar. Maar dat is niet wat ik bedoel met 'overstijgen' of 'sturen', omdat je daarbij die verlangens erkent en een plaats geeft.]

"People whose unconscious and conscious motivations are in sync tend to enjoy greater well-being. Because they know themselves at a deeper level, they are able to make better decisions that more accurately reflect what they want and need. Interestingly, however, few of us enjoy this synchrony of conscious and unconscious mind. And this is especially true when it comes to sex. We are all pretty confused. And our massive misunderstanding is made even more challenging by the changes rapidly occurring in Western culture. Years ago, ignoring our sexual instincts was an easier proposition than it is today."(12-13)

Dat vanwege de veranderde kijk op het huwelijk en rolverdelingen tussen mannen en vrouwen, maar ook door de algehele seksualisering van de samenleving en het groeiende aantal mogelijkheden tot seks. Bovendien draait seks niet meer om de voortplanting.

"These changes impact everyone’s sex life in some way. As a result, we no longer have the luxury of ignoring key aspects of human sexual motivation such as our nonmonogamous instincts. In fact, consciously ignoring our sexual truths only makes humans more vulnerable to the opportunities and changes that are occurring around them. And research shows us this may be exactly what is happening. More people than ever are accessing pornography on the Internet. The statistics on sexual affairs suggest that women are having more of them, rapidly approaching frequencies comparable to men. Strip clubs are big business, as is prostitution. These more superficial expressions of sexuality upset many people, but they are not going away. People who develop a greater understanding of their sexuality may be better equipped to consciously deepen their sexual connection with one partner rather than disperse it in a multitude of directions — that is, to channel their sexual energies back into their intimate relationship if they so desire."(15)

[Met andere woorden: pornografie, vreemdgaan, stripclubs, prostitutie zijn slecht, seks in een exclusieve relatie is goed. We moeten onze onbewuste verlangens dus leren kennen om ze vervolgens weer te verdringen?]

"Marriage and monogamy exist because they are great ideas. Sexual monogamy offers real and significant rewards for those who practice it, as well as for our culture. The advantages to children are perhaps the most obvious. Children reared in two-parent homes enjoy numerous benefits. They tend to be better adjusted emotionally, intellectually, sexually, and physically. In contrast, children of divorced parents show greater challenges in all of these areas. They reach puberty earlier, have sex sooner than their peers, and over time they have more sex partners.
But children are not the only beneficiaries of monogamy. Mothers and fathers profit emotionally, physically, legally, and financially from marriage. They generally find co-parenting easier and more enjoyable than single-parenting from all these perspectives. Married people have less physical and emotional illness, and they practice healthier lifestyles. Couples enjoy greater efficiency in their daily lives by dividing parenting, financial, and household responsibilities. The financial benefits of marriage are very real. The pooling of two people’s resources enables everyone to enjoy a higher quality of life. Marriage also offers the potential of additional support from extended family members. In many ways, marriage provides a safe haven in an often overwhelming world. Within the safe confines of a sexually monogamous marriage, couples enjoy the comfort of a consistent, reliable partner dedicated to caring for them. People have the benefit of a live-in sexual partner. Socially, even our culture benefits from the institution of marriage. Without monogamy, venereal disease would become even more of a public health crisis than it already is. Yes, sexual monogamy in a long-term relationship is undoubtedly worth fighting for." [mijn nadruk] (15-16)

"First, because the reality that monogamy isn’t natural doesn’t mean there are great alternatives. There is no easy solution to the predicament our sexual instincts present. Many creative solutions have been tried and failed. Humans have experimented with a variety of alternatives to a sexually monogamous family unit — harems, communes, polyamory, and swinging, to name a few. While these approaches work for some people some of the time, none of them have provided a reasonable solution for the majority of couples.
Secondly, women are instinctively motivated to find a partner, nest, and have babies.(...)
Third, falling in love is a very powerful, magical experience. It is so allconsuming that it becomes hard to believe the feelings are temporary." [mijn nadruk] (16)

[Verhaaltjes, verhaaltjes, verhaaltjes. Dat krijg je er nu van wanneer iemand de maatschappelijke kant van het menselijk handelen niet in het hoofd heeft. Waarom heeft monogamie nu zo veel voordelen? Waarom lukt het niet zo met alternatieve leefvormen? Precies, omdat monogamie de enige geaccepteerde leefvorm is. Als je maar mee doet / kunt doen en je houdt aan de dominante waarden en normen over relaties en seks en zorgt dat je erbij hoort, ja dan heb je een gemakkelijk leven vol zekerheden. Alleen is het in de eerste plaats heel jammer dat veel mensen niet in staat zijn om er zo netjes bij te horen en is het in de tweede plaats zo dat er ook enorme nadelen verbonden zijn aan monogamie waarover ik haar hier niet hoor. Bij elkaar blijven voor de kinderen? Ze noemt het alsof daar niet allerlei problemen aan kleven. En zo verder. Er zitten hier allerlei waarden en normen op de ondergrond en de auteur heeft niets in de gaten.]

(19) Chapter Two - How childhood relationships affect adult sexuality

Verhaal over een casus.

[Tamelijk zelfgenoegzaam ook, wil ik er aan toevoegen. Bovendien wordt er de hele tijd vanuit gegaan dat het normaal is dat allerlei mensen die vastlopen in relaties in therapie gaan, ja wat wil je, ze is zelf een therapeute. Maar het simpele feit dat zo veel mensen therapeuten nodig hebben om hun relaties een beetje leefbaar te houden zegt ook al heel wat.]

"It quickly became clear to me that there was no longer any glaring psychological dysfunction for us to conquer. I suggested to Beth that her lack of interest in sex might be her natural instincts kicking in. We discussed the research indicating that monogamy isn’t natural for all humans. Beth’s eyes became wide and her speech more rapid. She acknowledged that she would probably feel interest in another man if she didn’t feel so guilty about the thought of cheating on Rob. She thought she may even enjoy masturbating if she didn’t feel uncomfortable when fantasizing about other men. She cried again, this time with relief that there was nothing inherently wrong with her. It was a powerful moment for us both."(20)

[Al die schuldgevoelens bij deze vrouw, maar psychologisch is er niets te doen? Ze durft voortaan over andere mannen te fantaseren nu dat er een 'natuurlijke' reden voor is? Dat had ze zelf niet voor elkaar gekregen zonder die reden?]

"What makes some men and women more successful at monogamy than others? Our answers to these questions have thus far primarily been found in psychological literature. From a psychological perspective, success with monogamy as an adult has largely been understood as an outgrowth of attachment history. That is, the quality of a child’s attachment bond with parents impacts how they later experience love relationships as adults."(20)

In dit hoofdstuk een onderzoek naar wat de psychologie zegt over liefde, seks en monogamie.

"It will become clear that no single psychological theory satisfactorily explains monogamous behavior in humans. Current research on attachment theory also fails to predict success with monogamy in long-term relationships. We will see that until human instinctual behavior is considered, our theories and research will not succeed in explaining all of humanity’s complex sexual behavior."(21)

"Failures of monogamy are therefore typically understood as pathology, and generally referred to as 'intimacy issues' by the mental health professions. This conceptualization is certainly valid as a crucial component of monogamy, and it has served us well in our understanding of intimacy. However, we will also explore how our current theories fail to account for all of the challenges inherent in monogamous relationships."(21)

[Het is dus duidelijk dat monogamie de norm is die gehanteerd wordt door psychologen en dat iedereen die daar niets mee kan een psychisch probleem heeft. Dan ben je wel erg blind voor je eigen uitgangspunten.]

De eerste theorie is de psychoanalyse met in het voetspoor ervan de objectrelatietheorie en de egopsychologie. Dan volgt het behaviorisme met in die lijn de cognitieve gedragspsychologie. Vervolgens de sociale leertheorie, de gezinssysteemtheorie, bindingstheorie, evolutionaire psychologie. Het idee van de laatste:

"In contrast to men, who tend to have affairs with all types of women, women almost exclusively have affairs with men they consider to be socially, physically, or emotionally more dominant than their partner. In sum, consciously or not, women want to mate with more dominant men, while men are more concerned with mating young, fertile women." [mijn nadruk] (29)

"Men generally seem to have a stronger natural sex drive than women which is likely to be an evolutionarily selected trait.(...)
It is attraction that becomes the glue that keeps a couple intimately connected for at least a few years. From an evolutionary perspective, this means that a man is oriented to remain a part of the family unit long enough to support a woman and child until the child becomes at least a toddler, able to move about without assistance.(...)
The third stage of love, attachment, provides the bond that keeps couples together over time. Women seem to be particularly oriented toward this phase of love. That is probably because women tend to be the primary caregivers of children, and thus the female brain more easily and comfortably rests in this state of stable, nurturing connection."(30-31)

[En dat allemaal instinctief en onbewust om de beste genen te kunnen doorgeven. Wat een onzin, toch allemaal. Bestaande waarden en normen worden netjes ingepast in de theorie. Alsof het zo moet zijn in plaats van dat het om maatschappelijke constructies en persoonlijke keuzes gaat.]

"Thus, there are numerous reasons why people choose monogamy, and countless reasons people don’t. Attachment styles are one important variable playing a role in these decisions. In my working with many couples over the years, it appears difficult for people to predict how monogamy will feel to them as the years go by. I have worked with many people who were in love and determined to be monogamous, but were unsuccessful at achieving their goal. Some people seem to become more in touch with their sexual instincts with time, others much less so. Others are more vulnerable to influences in the environment and outside opportunities. Some individuals value the security of a long-term relationship more than the passion of a new love. Others value passion more than security. People change and grow with time, and so do their preferences and desires. Indeed, predicting monogamous behavior is a very complex, if not impossible, task."(37)

(39) Chapter Three - The human sexual animal: how our brains and biology affect intimacy

"In this chapter, we explore those aspects of our biology that influence our desire for sex, and how these may relate to monogamy."(39)

"While biological researchers may agree that a long-term monogamous relationship is a desirable goal for intimate relationships, they generally do not consider this a natural — or even expected — process for humans.(...) We now explore the various ways biologists, zoologists, endocrinologists, and neuropsychiatrists relate the brain and body to human sexuality."(40)

"Our superior brain development is what sets us apart from other animals and makes us human. However, it creates unique challenges for us when it clashes with the best-laid plans of our more primitive brain."(41)

"Of course, sexual behavior is complex and multidetermined. Brain biology is not the only explanation for behavior. But it does represent one piece of the monogamy puzzle that therapists and researchers are attempting to unravel. The choice to remain monogamous is impacted by brain structures, although clearly not determined by them. Each individual must weigh conscious intentions and beliefs about monogamy against unconscious sexual impulses generated by the reproductive desires of their reptilian brain. In recognizing this process, it becomes easier to understand how conscious intentions can mutate into the complex sexual behaviors of adulthood." [mijn nadruk] (41-42)

[In het verhaal dat volgt ziet Brandon overal een tendens naar monogamie, al zegt ze zelf dat het allemaal niet duidelijk is. En steeds wordt er vanuit gegaan dat mensen net als dieren zijn, er worden heel gemakkelijke conclusies getrokken vanuit biologische zaken bij dieren naar menselijke voorkeuren. Bijvoorbeeld: Jongens die fysiek rijpen voor de onvermijdelijke competitie met andere mannen om vrouwen te krijgen, etc. etc., de theorie van 'sperm wars', van 'passing your genes' en 'mating strategies'. Ik geloof er werkelijk niets van en het is allemaal weer gericht op nakomelingen krijgen, alsof we niet anders kunnen als mensen. Wat doen we dan bijvoorbeeld met monogamie of niet bij homoseksuele mensen?]

"Just as we continue to search for the genetic components to a wide variety of human traits and characteristics, the question remains whether monogamy has a genetic element in humans." [mijn nadruk] (45)

"Researchers are also exploring a possible genetic link to other human behaviors indirectly related to monogamy, such as a tendency toward divorce, never marrying, or pair-bonding. The likely inheritable trait is not the behavior itself, but rather certain personality characteristics that are correlated with these behaviors. Thus, rather than inheriting a tendency to divorce, people may inherit a tendency to be challenged by interpersonal conflict or a high need for change and excitement.
But the genetic influence on our mating behavior is even more complex than this. Genetics play other intricate roles in sexual motivation and behavior, which can ultimately impact success with monogamy."(45)

[Ongetwijfeld zijn mensen voor 100% gedetermineerd door biologische factoren. Maar wat zegt dat over normatieve keuzes? Niets. Niemand kan aantonen dat de keuze voor of tegen monogamie precies en uitsluitend is terug te voeren op bpaalde genetische factoren. Die keuzes zijn ook terug te voren op psychische en sociale factoren die mensen eveneens determineren. Hetzelfde geldt voor het aantrekkelijk vinden van mensen.]

"Exploring the genetic contribution to monogamy brings up the age-old controversy of nature versus nurture. But it is important to note that isolating genes that influence human mating behavior is not an argument for biology and against environment. As noted earlier in this chapter, these variables are constantly intertwined, and human behavior is always influenced by both perspectives. For example, the environment can program permanent changes into DNA, which can then get passed down to future generations. In this way, people inherit adaptations to their environment, and a species evolves. Scientists are thus learning that DNA can be modified just like any other molecule. Genes are not as inflexible as we once believed."(46)

[OK, maar waarom zie ik dan geen analyses van de maatschappelijke rol in de keuzes voor monogamie en wel heel veel over biologie?]

"This suggests that men with higher testosterone are more prone to mating and dominance behaviors, and men with lower testosterone are more prone to long-term attachment and fathering. In further support of this hypothesis, men with lower testosterone levels were associated with better father-child relationships and better parenting responsiveness. Women actually know this innately, as research suggests that women are more likely to marry men with lower sex hormone levels, but have extramarital sex with men higher in testosterone." [mijn nadruk] (46-47)

[Zucht ... En andere bekende verhalen. En geen discusie over onderzoeksmethoden of wat dan ook.]

"In sum, a variety of evolutionary differences between men and women can play a role in a predilection toward monogamy. Based on women’s reproductive needs, we would expect them to be more in support of monogamy than men — at least, in support of serial monogamy. Women may be as predisposed to enjoying multiple partners as men, but they are also more inclined to maintain a monogamous relationship for a period of time as it supports offspring survival."(51)

[Ja, maar: waarom zou een vrouw uit moeten zijn op nakomelingen? Dat is een keuze, geen noodzaak.]

(53) Chapter Four - Passionate pack animals: making your instincts work for you

"Human primates are social creatures at the core. Very few of us choose to live in isolated locations without human contact. Those among us who do live in seclusion are considered the fringe of society. They make the rest of us anxious because we don’t understand their motivations for living in isolation and we tend to assume the worst. That is because we know innately that humans are meant to exist in packs — whether it’s the small pack of a family unit, the larger pack of an extended family, or the even larger pack of a community.
Humans are driven to connect. Our social needs are believed to be evolutionarily based for several reasons. One, there is safety in numbers. We are better able to stay alive and care for ourselves when we can assist and be assisted by others. Second, our innate desire to develop partnerships with the opposite sex results in a secure environment for raising children, thus enabling the continuation of our species. If our infants don’t survive, neither does our species. Partnership helps to ensure everyone’s evolution."(53)

[Weer zo'n voorbeeld dat niets zegt. Ook al zijn mensen sociale wezens, dan nog zegt dat niets over de balans tussen met anderen zijn en alleen zijn. Het betekent niet dat we getrouwd moeten zijn, het betekent niet dat we er niet voor kunnen kiezen de helft van de week alleen te leven. Er zijn honderden manieren om sociaal te zijn, waarom zou dat iets zeggen over of voor monogamie? 'our innate desire to develop partnerships with the opposite sex' is misschien niet meer dan de behoefte aan seks. Ook staan nakomelingen weer centraal: relaties die niet voor kinderen kiezen en homoseksuele relaties blijven buiten beschouwing. Die moeten we zeker veroordelen omdat ze niet gericht zijn op het in standhouden van de soort? Het is in feite een grote cirkelredenering.]

"Thus, a dominance hierarchy supports evolution by maintaining a level of group cooperation that is good for the species at large, even though it is challenging for the weaker members of the community. Dominance hierarchies may not be fair, but they enable a more efficient system. The alternative to having no one in charge is usually undesirable for all involved." [mijn nadruk] (54)

[De waardeoordelen die hier in zitten! En het wordt meteen doorgetrokken: dus mensen hebben leiders nodig, etc. etc. Heel gevaarlijk evolutionair geklets.]

"Dominance hierarchies have evolutionary benefits to the species as well. They ensure that the strongest males have the most opportunity to reproduce, thus increasing the chances of healthy, powerful offspring being available to lead the group in coming generations. Thus, violent as dominance behaviors may appear to us, they ultimately support evolution of the species by reproducing the strongest and probably the healthiest animals within the pack. Remember, evolution’s purpose isn’t to support equality or justice among a species. And unfortunately for us, it’s not even to promote happiness. The sole goal of evolution is ensuring the survival of a species." [mijn nadruk] (54)

[Idem. Ze komt pas later met dominante hiërarchieën waarin vrouwen de dienst uitmaken om het beste sperma binnen te krijgen met het oog op de evolutie. Maar:]

"However, female primates express their opinions verbally or via body language rather than with brute force. Females and males serve different functions within the pack and their hierarchies support cooperation both between and within the sexes."(55)

[Als dat geen terugvertaling is vanuit de samenleving van mensen ... Zie je wel het is van nature zo, kan nu weer iedereen roepen.]

(69) Chapter Five - Social evolution means sexual revolution

"To understand how we can make monogamy more sexually exciting and satisfying in the future, we first have to take a look at where we’ve been."(69)

[Met andere woorden: het draait om een bevestiging van de monogamie terwijl die bekritiseerd zou moeten worden.]

"With this increasing broadmindedness and less rigidity of sex roles, our sex lives were sure to evolve in kind. At least that’s what everyone thought was happening."(69)

"The potential for more exciting, satisfying sex became increasingly real in everyone’s mind. And then there was the downside."(70)

"But a strange thing happed as these transformations occurred. The sexes became more androgynous as they lost connection with their instinctual energy. And in this process, sex never actually became more satisfying for men and women in long-term relationships. While these transformations improved the sex lives of single people and couples in short-term relationships, they did little to enhance the quality of sex in long-term committed relationships."(70)

[Stelling zonder onderbouwing.]

"The good news was that monogamous men were no longer experiencing their wives as sexually passive or selfless. However, men were now finding their women to be demanding and controlling in bed. Monogamous women were no longer finding their men to be cold and insensitive between the sheets. Instead, women felt their men were becoming weak and unassertive sexually. The politically correct evolution of everyone’s masculine and feminine energy was backfiring in the bedroom. And it still is. This remains a struggle for much of Western culture today."

[Zou het ooit in haar hoofd kunnen opkomen dat partners na zoveel jaar op elkaar uitgekeken raken en niet zo veel zin meer hebben in seks? ]

"Both sexes are acquiring the very skills needed to reach new depths in the bedroom. And in Western culture, we have the exquisite luxury of cultivating our innate sexual selves. Unlike other parts of the world, we do not have to worry about the basics of living, such as food or shelter. Instead, we can choose to expend energy cultivating our intimate connections, taking our love lives to new levels. What an opportunity for us all!" [mijn nadruk] (70-71)

[Over dom en chauvinistisch gegeneraliseer gesproken. Ja, want er is helemaal geen armoede of andere sociale ellende in het Westen, iedereen heeft het goed in de USA. Werkelijk.]

"Although monogamy isn’t natural, it still can be exciting if you know what to do. Our cultural midlife sex crisis is the result of our disconnection from our instincts." [mijn nadruk] (71)

"Rarely do we take a break from our hectic schedules for gentle yoga, meditation, or massage — activities that help us feel pleasure in our bodies. As a result, we become less in tune with our physical selves over time. Our connection to our sensual selves — a woman’s primal femininity and a man’s primal masculinity — is therefore diminished." [mijn nadruk] (72)

[Begrijp je wel? Wordt weer gevolgd door evolutionaire psychologie van de koude grond.]

"The challenge for women in the 21st century involves yet another transformation of feminine energy. As we have explored, the feminist movement brought women out of a passive, dependent state and into one of power and confidence. Now, for woman to translate her gains into the bedroom, she actually must return to her innate feminine nature. But rather than experience it as passive and helpless as our sisters did decades ago, women have a new opportunity to create a sexual state of active, open, and engaged surrender. Thus, women can use their newfound strength to fall deeper into their feminine selves, into that place within them where passion lies. Only a strong woman is willing to let go into the depths of her passion. Otherwise, this state feels too vulnerable to her, and she will avoid it. As women grow yet again, further into their power, they can use this energy to make monogamy more of what they want it to be.(...) She’ll find herself wanting to make love because the feeling of surrendering into her partner’s strength is exquisite. Her softness will accelerate her husband’s growth into manhood. He’ll more quickly be the yang to her yin, the masculine to her feminine, the strong presence to her emotional flow. (...) Masculine energy runs rampant in politics, technology, and finance. That is not to say that women are not involved in these aspects of life. Instead, it means that it is the masculine energy in all of us that motivates these systems forward. And without a softer feminine energy readily available to balance the more harsh masculine energy, our culture loses a certain flow, sensitivity, and open heart that helps to make life a more tender experience. As women cultivate this within themselves, they can offer more of this energy in all of their activities, potentially making the world a kinder, gentler place." [mijn nadruk] (74)

[Hier moest ik hartelijk lachen. Uiteindelijk moeten vrouwen zich toch weer overgeven aan sterke mannen, als ik dit vage middenklassegeklets goed begrijp. Een sterke vrouw zou monogamie willen vermijden, lijkt me.]

"Transformation is never easy. Change is frightening, even when we chose it. The task for women is formidable — becoming soft in a patriarchy is not a small feat, even if it is relegated only to the bedroom. Women already experience many unique sexual challenges as compared to men. Being the receptive aspect in a sexual dynamic requires that a woman open to a more assertive male. This is true for all mammals and primates. For even small creatures like mice, the female must be receptive and cooperate for sex to be successful. The male is the more active and assertive partner during copulation. For many women, this receptivity feels uncomfortably vulnerable. It requires a level of trust in her partner that he won’t use his strength and force to hurt her. This age-old dynamic may leave a woman feeling overexposed or unprotected, two adjectives I rarely hear a man use to explain his feelings during sex. Thus, the task of sexual evolution requires women to go even further into this already vulnerable place where her primal energies reside."(74)

"Men’s contribution to this exchange is obviously as critical to the outcome as women’s. The more a man allows himself to access his more primal alpha energy, the more his woman will instinctually surrender into her feminine energy. Men have evolved tremendously in the last few decades. They are no longer cold and insensitive in their intimate relationships. Now man must return to his primal masculine self in a way that enhances intimate connection, allows his partner to trust him more, and directs both of them on a path to more succulent monogamy. And women are longing for this transformation. I have never worked with a woman who said she wanted a weaker man, or a more passive man, or a less sensitive man. After the excitement of a new relationship wears off, women long for what is instinctual for them — to be taken and opened by a strong man."(75-76)

[Nog maar eens een paar voorbeelden van evolutionair geklets teneinde conservatieve opvattingen door te zetten.]

"The second part of this book is devoted to helping you connect with your primal instincts. It has a more personal tone and includes multiple homework suggestions. These assignments are essential exercises in reconnecting to your instinctual core — simply knowing this information intellectually without experiencing it more deeply in your body is not enough. May this book serve you well on your quest to evolve your sexual experience, as well as your life experience." [mijn nadruk] (83)

(85) Part II - Passionate monogamy

[Dit tweede deel is dus therapeutisch bedoeld en vol met therapeutisch gebasel. Gelukkig voegt dat ook niets nieuws toe, ik kan het overslaan. Een zucht van verlichting klinkt hier.]