Commentary - Reasons to be promiscuous

A recent column urged Duke girls to discard traditional morality in favor of a liberated Weltanschauung brimming with table dancing, black books and stereotypically "masculine" behavior where females take initiative in satisfying their carnal impulses. But at least two Duke girls and one morbidly undersexed guy, remained unimpressed by this argument, wailing in letters to The Chronicle about the wickedness of "promiscuity," insisting that "classy and promiscuous are mutually exclusive," before concluding with an effluvia of disdain and self-righteous breast thumping. Unlike the columnist, who justified her liberation with a reason--pleasure--these writers did not feel like slumming around with rational arguments, preferring to regurgitate aphorisms derived from a hodgepodge of religious hokum and stillborn ballyhoo. None offered any reasons against polyandry--the practice of a female taking more than one male partner--that was not based on hollow rhetoric. The gauntlet is thrown down, and so I am obliged to prove the scientific case for female promiscuity and episodic lesbianism by demonstrating why having multiple partners is in the interest of all Duke women.

According to Tim Birkhead, the author of Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition, females have three primary reasons for making it with a multiplicity of males. First on his list is a trend that has been well-documented in black-bellied fruit flies, whereby females mate with a large number of males to ensure that they have an adequate measure of sperm on board. Naturally, this makes sense, since a single male can produce only so much sperm, which may prove insufficient for fertilization. Therefore, any Duke women who are aspiring mothers are better off finding an assortment of partners.

Next comes another marvelous benefit that applies to Duke women who are presently disinclined to reproduce and is seen quite often in nature, and to a lesser degree on city street corners and in Amsterdam: sex can be traded for resources. While most of the time this resource is food, Birkhead relates the interesting case of the Adele penguin, a socially monogamous species with a fondness for building nests out of rare "chunky pebbles." Since there are not many of these stones around, the penguins steal them from the nests of their neighbors when vacant. Yet this process can unfold in a different way as well. If a female is out foraging for pebbles and she comes upon a solitary male relaxing in his pad she will have sex with him for a big fat rock, which has an obvious human analogue that female undergraduates can exploit to their advantage.

The third impetus Birkhead identifies for female couplings with multiple males is the potential genetic benefits this may bring for her offspring, such as genetic diversity, complimentarity, attractiveness and viability. Living in Durham makes genetic diversity in offspring a great advantage, given the harsh nature of the environment. Varied progeny have a better chance of surviving, though their chances remain slim. Complimentarity is best thought of in terms of mutual compatibility; by mating with several males it is less likely that a female will be fertilized by an "incompatible" male. With attractiveness, the case is similar. Presumably, it is advantageous for a female to mate with as many attractive males as possible in hopes that her offspring will also be attractive. And the identical argument applies to viability.

Undeniably, Duke girls are competitive, actualizing these urges by doing things like exercising, studying or engaging in nebulous social behaviors poorly understood by those condemned to live with XY chromosomes. And female bonobos are even more competitive than our peers, but avoid the misery of struggle by doing each other. De Waal writes pithily: "Sex reduces competition among females and allows them to forage together." Imagine how sweet it would be if Duke girls could all go out foraging as a big, amiable troop. Foraging, I suppose, in this model would consist of shopping, and for that reason--harmonious social relationships, Duke women should embrace lesbianism.

But in any event, his kind of cohesion allows for female bonobos to take control. In fact, female bonobos dominate male bonobos in many cases, and secure the right to eat first. In a more poignant example, anthropologist Amy Parish explains how one luckless male had his penis cleaved in two by the alpha female, but apparently this female dominance of and collective exercise of physical force against males is not altogether uncommon, and is a direct result of strong sexually-based ties among bonobo females. Thus, by adopting bisexuality and episodic, goal-directed relationships with men, Duke women can gain unity and empowerment.

Yet the most important contribution polyandry among bonobos makes in their community is exactly that: community. And at last we have it, since in this isolated regard things are the same for humans; we have reached the very heart of the message, the brilliant center that gives metaphysical justification to the pervasive "hook-up" culture at universities everywhere. "Hooking-up" is the ultimate way of creating social bonds among members of a group, and as such it is the most important social undertaking available to undergraduates. By enjoying encounters with a number of men, Duke girls are able to construct a relational web that fosters cooperation, communication and Dionysian understanding among students, and in so doing they should be congratulated and never denigrated, since these relationships improve life not only for the involved parties, but for everyone. Indeed--as a good friend pointed out to me--this kind of sexual integration has the potential to solve a host of social problems, particularly that of racial self-segregation. "Hooking-up" can transcend race.

Thus, for fertility, resources, pleasure and community, Duke females ought to embrace polyandry, since--if done with proper prudence--it is of inestimable value. Men ought to be pursued, and women allowed to revel in the afterglow of freedom, to bask in the beneficent light of liberty and licentiousness. The time of the moralists who speak of being "distressed and depressed" by such things has passed; they are on the wrong side of progress.

Matthew Gillum is a Trinity junior. His column appears every other Tuesday.