The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature

I have always been interested in the sex drive that I live with. It is so persistent and yet it is impossible to know how it compares with the experiences of other people. Perhaps Mr Ridley’s book would shed some light, give some understanding of the drive and what it is. But I had, of course, already given some thought to the subject. It seems to me that there are three basic reasons for our society’s attitudes to sex (which, incidentally, I think are appalling with regard to assisting young people). Firstly, there is health of the actively sexual person and the health of the child that they may parent. Secondly is the care of the child that may result, and finally there is the social impact of interfering with relationships which are, it seems to me, evolved to provide child support. Mr Ridley gets so involved in comparing the mating behaviours and sexual relationships of different species that these common sense points are glossed or missed. He doesn’t explain that sexual relationships are often associated with minor health problem at their commencement – and that health issues might extend to major problems such as AIDS. It seems wise for people the have one sexual partner with whom their body becomes familiar. He does discuss the incest taboo but almost dismisses the likelihood of genetic impacts except for children born from union between children and their parents. The matter of unwanted pregnancy is anthema to Mr Ridley’s thesis that the genes drive the sexual urge. Consequently there is no mention of contraception. If the genes are running the show why would we have ever developed contraception, ever had the will to do it? It irritated me immensely to read that the genes want to push on into the next generation (not unique to Mr Ridley}. Genes do not think, they do not actively attempt to do anything. It may seem so to us from our perspective as the latest generation of the species. But we are here only because the chemistry of the genes allows it, and that chemistry is automatic and spontaneous. People do make conscious decisions to have children – ask any couple who has had to resort to adoption or IVF to achieve this end. Of course some children are not planned but moderm man does have the capacity to control the birthrate, and this was done in ancient civilisations and in some modern societies by infanticide – surely, again, counter to Mr Ridley’s thesis. Finally there are the social issues. I disliked (but perhaps the research that indicates this is correct) Mr Ridley’s thesis that humans have evolved in a manner that leaves man with a desire for promiscuity (to scatter his seed) but woman with a desire for monogamy (affairs will not greatly increase her chance to parent children ‘as the genes demand’). This seems to be an apology for the behaviour of some men (note: some) and ignores the behaviour of some women.

I suspect that, with a better control over health and pregnancy risks in sexual activity, the social aspects of sex will change, that close friends will cease to deny themselves that final expression of commitment and caring. I suspect that partners will becomes less jealous and that we will all engage in more intimate adventures, more sharing encounters. But that is the future – generations from now. While Mr Ridley spends a lot of time in the past (where none of us live) he gives little thought to the future where we and our children will live.

Some reviewers found the first few chapters of this book difficult to read. I found all of it a labour, but perhaps that was because I was increasingly disappointed in what I was reading and what wasn’t covered. To note that human society, as far as sexual relations are concerned, most resembles the societies of some birds seems to have no value to me at all. At times Mr Ridley notes that research he is quoting is controversial. I got the distinct feeling that he was not describing with even handedness current research into this subject – but that he was selecting research to foster a pet theory of his own.
Rating: 2 / 5

With a casual disregard for political correctness, the post-feminist generation is reintroduced to basic human nature. What for millenia was taken for granted as so fundamental that it needed no explanation, became the height of impropriety to mention in polite company. In fact, it’s been a bizarre inversion of reality that’s taken hold as the popular opinion in society. Because it’s soft and cuddly and non-offensive and doesn’t threaten to hurt the feewings of the poor widdle wadies out there.

There is no greater testament to our ability to suspend disbelief then the denial of human nature on such an elemental, such a rudimentary level. When Ridley dropped this book like a bomb in the mid-90′s at the height of the PC movement, it was like the lone voice of reason in a sandstorm of blather. That we should have to go to such lengths – all the way down to the DNA, just to demonstrate common sense is nothing short of absurd.

A magnificent work of popular science. Instantly a modern classic. Eminently accessible to the laity, well written, engaging and entertaining. Any sex education curriculum would stand to benefit more from the inclusion of this book, then any other save a text on health and safety. Don’t expect to see it on your school district’s reading list any time soon though. But that doesn’t mean you can’t give it to you adolescent age child.
Rating: 5 / 5