Tags:
Journalism of Courage
As an evolutionary biologist, I look at New York Governor Eliot Spitzer8217;s now-public sexual indiscretions and feel justified in saying, 8220;I told you so8221;.
One of the most startling discoveries of the last 15 years has been the extent of sexual infidelity scientists call it 8220;extra-pair copulations8221; or EPCs among animals long thought to be monogamous. It8217;s clear that social monogamy 8212; physical association and child rearing between a male and a female 8212; and sexual monogamy are very different things. The former is common, the latter is rare.
A story is told in New Zealand about the early 19th-century visit of an Episcopal bishop to an isolated Maori village. As everyone was about to retire after an evening of high-spirited feasting and dancing, the village headman 8212; wanting to show sincere hospitality to his honoured guest 8212; called out, 8220;A woman for the bishop.8221; Seeing a scowl of disapproval on the prelate8217;s face, the host roared even louder, 8220;Two women for the bishop!8221;
On balance, the Maori headman had an acute understanding of men. He also reflected a powerful cross-cultural universal. Around the world, high-ranking men have long enjoyed sexual access to comparatively large numbers of women, typically young and attractive. Moreover, women have by and large found such men appealing beyond what may be predicted from their immediate physical traits. 8220;Power,8221; wrote Henry Kissin-ger, 8220;is the ultimate aphrodisiac.8221;
All of which contributes to the apparent sex appeal of such less-than-stunning physical specimens as Kissinger, Woody Allen and Bill Clinton, not to mention the persistence of sex scandals among the popular and powerful across the political and ideological spectrum, including Thomas Jefferson, JFK, Hugh Grant, Newt Gingrich, and Larry Craig.
Some readers may bridle at this characterisation of Homo sapiens as EPC-inclined, but the evidence is overwhelming. That doesn8217;t justify adultery, by either sex, especially because human beings 8212; even those burdened by a Y chromosome and suffering from testosterone poisoning 8212; are presumed capable of exercising control over their impulses. Especially if, via wedding vows, they have promised to do so.
But even a smidgen of evolutionary insight suggests that maleness plus money plus political power isn8217;t likely to add up to the kind of sexual restraint that the public expects. A concluding word, therefore, to the outraged voters of New York state: You want monogamy? Elect a swan.
The writer is an evolutionary biologist
