As a first step towards pruning down our laundry list of six theories, let's realize that, whatever factors caused our distinctive sexual habits to evolve in the distant past, they would not be persisting today if there were not some factors still sustaining them. But the factors responsible for their initial appearance need not have been the same as the ones now operative. In particular, although the factors behind Theories 3, 5, and 6 may have been major ones long ago, they do not seem to be so now. Only a minority of modern women uses sex either to obtain food or other resources from a number of men, or to confound paternity and induce many men simultaneously to support a woman's child. Postulates of their former role are paleopoetry, albeit plausible paleopoetry. Let's just content ourselves with trying to understand why concealed ovulation and frequent private copulation might make sense now. At least, our guesses can be guided by introspection about ourselves plus observations of others.

The factors behind Theories 1, 2, and 4 seem to me still operative today, and to be facets of the same paradox, the most distinctive feature of human social organization. That paradox is that a man and woman desirous for their child (and genes) to survive must cooperate with each other for a long time to rear their child, and must also cooperate economically with many other couples living close by. It is obvious that regular sexual relations between a man and woman intensifies their connection, compared to their connections with other women and men whom they see daily but with whom they are not involved sexually. Concealed ovulation and constant receptivity advance this 'new' function of sex (new by the standards of most mammals) as a social cement, not just a device for fertilization. This function is not, as in the traditional male chauvinist version of Theories 1 and 2, a sop thrown by a cold, calculating woman to a sex-starved man, but instead an inducement for both sexes. Not only have all signs of female ovulation vanished, but the act of sex itself takes place privately, to emphasize the distinction between sexual and non-sexual partners within the same close group. As for the objection that gibbons remain monogamously involved without the reward of constant sex, that is easy to explain: each gibbon couple has minimal social—and no economic—involvement with other gibbon couples.

Human testis size also seems to me an outcome of that same basic paradox of human social organization. While our testes are larger than a gorilla's, because we have frequent sex for fun, they are still smaller than a chimpanzee's, because we are more monogamous. The oversized human penis may have evolved as an arbitrary sexual display symbol, as arbitrary as a lion's mane or a woman's enlarged breasts. Why were lionesses not the ones to develop enlarged breasts, lions an oversized penis, and men a mane? If they had, those permuted signals could have functioned equally well. That it did not come out that way may bejust an accident of evolution, a result of each species' and sex's relative ease of evolving those various structures. But there is still something basic missing from our discussion so far. I have talked about an idealized form of human sexuality: monogamous couples (plus a few polygynous households), husbands confident in their paternity of their wives' children, and husbands helping their wives with child-rearing rather than neglecting the kids in order to philander. As justification for discussing this fictitious ideal, I maintain that actual human practice is much closer to this ideal than to baboon or chimpanzee practice. But the ideal is still fictitious. Any social system with rules of conduct is open to the risk of individuals cheating when they find the advantages of cheating to outweigh the burden of sanctions. The question is thus a quantitative one. Does cheating become so regular that the whole system collapses, or does cheating occur but not so often as to destroy the system, or is cheating vanishingly rare? As translated for human sexuality, that question becomes one of whether ninety, thirty or one per cent of human babies are fathered extramaritally. That question ^and its consequences will be the subject of the next chapter.

FOUR

THE SCIENCE OF ADULTERY

Cold-blooded analysis of adultery views life as an evolutionary contest whose winners are those individuals leaving the largest number of surviving offspring. This view helps one understand why humans reinvented adultery after the other two chimps had bypassed it.

People have many reasons to lie when asked whether they have committed adultery. Consequently, it is notoriously difficult to get accurate scientific information about this important subject. One of the few existing sets of hard facts emerged as a totally unexpected by-product of a medical study, performed nearly half-a-century ago for a different reason. That study's findings have never been revealed until now.

I recently learned those facts from the distinguished medical scientist who ran the study. (Since he does not wish to be identified in this connection, I shall refer to him as Dr X.) In the late 1940s Dr X was studying the genetics of human blood groups, which are molecules that we acquire only by inheritance. Each of us has dozens of blood-group substances on our red blood cells, and we inherit each substance either from our mother or from our father. The study's research plan was straightforward: go to the obstetrics ward of a highly respectable US hospital; collect blood samples from 1,000 newborn babies and their mothers and fathers; identify the blood groups in all the samples; and then use standard genetic reasoning to deduce the inheritance patterns.

To Dr X's shock, the blood groups revealed nearly ten per cent of those babies to be the fruits of adultery! Proof of the babies' illegitimate origin was that they had one or more blood groups lacking in both alleged parents. There could be no question of mistaken maternity—the blood samples were drawn from an infant and its mother soon after the infant emerged from the mother. A blood group present in a baby but absent in its undoubted mother could only have come from its father. Absence of the blood group from the mother's husband as well showed conclusively that the baby had been sired by some other man, extramaritally. The true incidence of extramarital sex must have been considerably higher than ten per cent, since many other blood-group substances now used in paternity tests were not yet known in the 1940s, and since most bouts of intercourse do not result in conception. At the time that Dr X made his discovery, research on American sexual habits was virtually taboo. He decided to maintain a prudent silence, never published his findings, and it was only with difficulty that I got his permission to mention his results without betraying his name. However, his results have more recently been confirmed by several similar genetic studies whose results did get published. Those studies variously showed between about five and thirty per cent of American and British babies to have been adulterously conceived. Again, the proportion of the tested couples of whom at least one practised adultery must have been higher, for the same two reasons as in Dr X's study.

We can now answer the question posed at the end of the last chapter: whether extramarital sex is for humans a rare aberration, a frequent exception to a 'normal' pattern of marital sex, or so frequent as to make a sham of marriage. The middle alternative proves to be the correct one. Most fathers really are raising their own children, and human marriage is not a sham. We are not just promiscuous chimpanzees pretending to be otherwise. Yet it is also clear that extramarital sex is an integral, albeit unofficial, part of the human mating system. Adultery has also been observed in many other animal species whose societies resemble ours in being based on male and female co-parents with a lasting bond. Since such lasting bonds do not characterize common chimpanzee or pygmy chimpanzee society, it is meaningless to talk of adultery in chimps. We must have reinvented it after our chimp-like ancestors had rendered it obsolete. Therefore, we cannot discuss human sexuality, and its role in our rise to humanity, without carefully considering the science of adultery. Most of our information about adultery's incidence has come from researchers asking people about their sex lives, rather than from blood-grouping their babies. Since the 1940s, the myth that marital infidelity is rare in the US has been publicly exploded by a long succession of surveys, beginning with the Kinsey report. Nevertheless, even though this is the supposedly liberated 1990s, we are still profoundly ambivalent about adultery. It is thought of as exciting; no television soap opera could attract many viewers without it. It has few rivals as a basis of humour. Yet, as Freud pointed out, we often use humour to deal with things that are intensely painful. Thus, throughout history, adultery has also had few rivals as a cause of murder and human misery. In writing about this subject, it is impossible to remain completely serious, but it is also impossible not to be revolted at the sadistic institutions by which societies have attempted to deal with extramarital sex.