MyOOPS開放式課程
請加入會員以使用更多個人化功能
來自全球頂尖大學的開放式課程,現在由世界各國的數千名義工志工為您翻譯成中文。請免費享用!
課程來源:TED
     

 

Christopher Ryan 談我們天生是雜交性動物嗎?

Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores?

 

Photo of three lions hunting on the Serengeti.

講者:Christopher Ryan

2013年2月演講,2014年2月在TED2013上線

 

翻譯:洪曉慧

編輯:朱學恒

簡繁轉換:洪曉慧

後制:洪曉慧

字幕影片後制:謝旻均

 

影片請按此下載

MAC及手持裝置版本請按此下載

閱讀中文字幕純文字版本

 

關於這場演講

當代對親密關係的認知有個根深蒂固的觀念:男性與女性總是基於一對一的性關係結合成伴侶。但農業社會之前,人類的性關係可能相當混亂。作家Christopher Ryan藉由備受爭議的證據,闡述人類天生屬於雜交性動物,並希望藉由更深入的瞭解,杜絕因歧視、羞恥及不切實際的期待對親密關係造成的破壞。

 

關於Christopher Ryan

《Sex at Dawn》共同作者Christopher Ryan探討人類性行為的史前根源。

 

為什麼要聽他演講

在引人入勝的書籍《Sex at Dawn》中,Christopher Ryan及共同作者醫學博士Cacilda Jethá探討人類史前雜交行為(也許類似倭黑猩猩)可能如何影響我們目前對伴侶關係、一夫一妻制及持久激情的態度。他們的論點借鑒來自人類學、考古學、靈長類動物學、解剖學及性心理學的證據。

 

身為心理學家的Ryan,研究重點在於試著區分文化與人類。他的著作、他的期許是:「藉由我們與生俱來的能力:愛、合作與包容,邁向更加樂觀的光明未來。」

 

Christopher Ryan的英語網上資料

Book: Sex at Dawn

Twitter: @ChrisRyanPhD

 

[TED科技‧娛樂‧設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄(繁體)(簡體)。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

 

Christopher Ryan 談我們天生是雜交性動物嗎?

 

我會脫稿演說,Chris肯定會坐立難安,讓聽眾一起參與。好,你們瞭解我的意思嗎?是、沒問題,很好。

 

因此我希望你們舉手,如果你們曾聽過一對異性伴侶做愛;或許是鄰居、在旅館房間、你的父母,抱歉。好,幾乎每個人都聽過。現在請舉手,如果男性發出的聲音比女性多。我看見一位男性舉手,你自己不算,先生。(笑聲)好,他把手放下了。一位女性舉手,好,坐在一位笑得很大聲的男士旁邊。

 

這告訴我們什麼?這告訴我們人類做愛時會發出聲音,一般來說女性發出的聲音較多,這就是所謂的雌性交配發聲。我本來不打算提這個,但有人告訴我梅格.萊恩或許在場,她是世上最著名的雌性交配發聲者,因此我想不妨提一下。我們稍後會再回到這個話題。

 

首先我想說的是,人類並非猿類的後代,儘管你或許聽過這種說法:我們屬於猿類。我們與黑猩猩及倭黑猩猩的相似度勝於非洲象與印度象。如Jared Diamond在他早期著作中指出的,我們與黑猩猩及倭黑猩猩的相似度,勝於牠們與任何其他靈長類動物:大猩猩、紅毛猩猩,任何你所知的種類。因此我們與牠們十分相近。可想而知,我們的行為也與牠們有某些相似處。因此我今天想提出的問題、想和你們一起探討的是,以性行為來說,我們屬於哪種猿類?好,自達爾文演化論以來,即存在Cacilda和我所謂的「人類性行為演化標準論述」。你們都耳熟能詳,即使不曾讀過。這個觀點是,從人類出現開始即擁有的部分天性是,男性藉由提供某些物品和服務,換取女性的生育能力。一般來說,我們指的是肉類、棲身處、地位、保護等等,對嗎?作為交換,女性提供她們的忠誠,或至少保持忠誠的承諾,這使得男性與女性處於對立關係。根據這種觀點,兩性間的戰爭早已深植於我們的DNA中,對嗎?我和Cacilda認為並非如此。這種利益關係、這種對立關係事實上是農業社會的產物。農業最早出現於1萬年前。根據解剖學觀點,現代人類出現於大約20萬年前,因此這最多只佔現代人類歷史5%時間。因此農業出現之前,農業革命之前,十分重要的一點是,人類生活於狩獵採集群體中。世界各地所發現的人類都有一項共同點,人類學家稱之為激烈的平等主義。他們不僅共享物品,亦要求物品共享:肉類、棲身處、保護等,一切事物都應作為交換女性忠誠的代價。事實上部落社會普遍共享這一切。好,我不是說我們祖先是高貴的野蠻人,也不是說現代狩獵採集者是高貴的野蠻人。我是指,這不過是降低風險的最佳方式,以覓食架構來說;人類學家對此並無異議。Cacilda和我主張的是,將這種共享模式延伸至性行為。因此我們主張人類性行為基本上已經過演化,直到農業出現,成為建立及維護這種複雜且靈活的社會系統網路的方式。我們的祖先十分擅長此道,這就是人類存活至今的原因。

 

好,這個論點讓某些人感到不舒服,因此我總是需要在演講中花點時間強調。聽著,我說我們的祖先屬於雜交性,但不是說他們和陌生人發生性關係。他們之間沒有陌生人,對嗎?狩獵採集部落中沒有陌生人;你和周遭的人相識一輩子。因此我說,是的,其中存在重疊的性關係。在成年生活中任何階段,我們祖先或許同時擁有幾段不同的性關係。但我不是指他們和陌生人發生性關係,我不是指他們不愛與他們發生性關係的人,我不是指其中不存在長期伴侶關係,我只是說這並非專一性伴侶模式。

 

我們當中選擇一夫一妻制的人-舉例來說,我父母在一夫一妻制下已結婚52年,如果不是一夫一妻-老爸老媽,我不想聽。我並非批評,也不是說這有什麼不對,我想說的是,批評我們祖先的雜交性,相當於批評一夫一妻制;批評我們祖先的雜食性,相當於批評素食主義。你可以選擇當素食者,但別認為只因做了這個決定,突然間培根聞起來不再美味,對嗎?這就是我的論點。(笑聲)(掌聲)需要花點時間才能理解,對嗎?

 

除了是偉大的天才、了不起的人、很棒的丈夫、一位好父親,查爾斯.達爾文也是世界知名的維多利亞時代保守人士,對嗎?他對某些靈長類動物性器官腫脹的現象感到困惑,包括黑猩猩及倭黑猩猩。因為性器官腫脹可刺激許多雄性與雌性交配,因此他無法理解為何雌性會發展出這種特徵,如果牠們應該形成固定伴侶關係,對嗎?關於黑猩猩及倭黑猩猩-達爾文不瞭解這一點-但黑猩猩及倭黑猩猩每小時可交配一至四次,每天可與高達12個雄性交配,當牠們的性器官處於腫脹狀態時。有趣的是,黑猩猩的性器官腫脹狀態大約佔月經周期的40%,倭黑猩猩則佔90%,人類是唯一一種女性在整個月經周期均可發生性行為的種族,無論月經期間或經期後、無論是否懷孕,這在哺乳類動物中相當罕見,因此這是人類性行為相當有趣的特點。好,達爾文當時不願探究性器官腫脹的意義,科學家有時會這麼做。

 

因此我們現在要談的是精子的競爭。好,人類射精時平均射出約3億個精蟲,因此這是相當競爭的環境。問題是,這些精蟲是否需要與其他男性的精蟲競爭,或只與同伴競爭。這張圖表包含許多資訊,現在我要你們注意的是,雌性黑猩猩、倭黑猩猩及人類頭上的小音符,代表雌性交配發聲。看一下這些數據:人類性交平均次數約一生一千次,如果這個數字對在座某些人來說太多,我保證對某些人來說太少。我們與黑猩猩及倭黑猩猩的性交次數相近,但與其他三種猿類不同。大猩猩、紅毛猩猩及長臂猿,牠們是較典型的哺乳類動物,一生僅性交約12次。人類及倭黑猩猩是唯一面對面性交的動物,當雙方都活著時。(笑聲)你知道,人類、黑猩猩及倭黑猩猩都有外露的睾丸,在我們的著作裡,我們把它比喻成放在車庫裡的特殊冰箱-只冰啤酒。如果你是那種車庫裡有專門放啤酒的冰箱的男性,你期待隨時開派對,你需要做好準備,這就是外露睪丸的作用。它們使精細胞保持涼爽,這樣才能頻繁地射精。抱歉,這是事實。有些人會很高興聽到,在所有靈長類動物中,人類擁有最大最粗的陰莖。

 

好,這個證據不僅來自解剖學,也來自人類學。歷史記錄記載了世界各地的性行為,根據我們對人類性行為演化的推論,那應該是不可能發生的事。中國西南方的摩梭族女性,在他們的社會中,每個人-男性和女性-都擁有完整的性自主權;性行為並非可恥之事。女性擁有數百名性伴侶;這沒什麼大不了,沒人在乎,不會出現流言蜚語,這只是芝麻小事。當女性懷孕時,小孩由母親、母親的姊妹及兄弟照顧,生父是誰並不重要。在地球另一端的亞馬遜,我們得知許多部落實行人類學家所謂的「可分父權制度」。這些人確實相信-這些部落之間沒有聯繫、沒有共同語言或任何東西,因此這個觀念並未廣為流傳,但這個想法出現在世界各地-他們相信胎兒是累積的精液孕育而成。因此如果一位女性想要一個聰明、有趣又強壯的孩子,她會確保分別與聰明、有趣、強壯的男性發生多次性行為,以便使孩子獲得這些男性的特質。當孩子出生時,這些不同的男性會上前確認自己對孩子的父權,因此在他們的社會中,父權可說是團隊努力的結果,對嗎?因此當我們查閱文獻時,會發現許多類似的例子。

 

好,這有何重要性?Edward Wilson曾說,我們需要瞭解,人類性行為首要是聯繫的工具,其次才是生育。我認為他說的沒錯,這相當重要,因為我們基於演化的性觀念和世上許多實際情況互相衝突。我們被告知應如何感受,及我們的真實感受間存在矛盾,導致許多不必要的痛苦。我的希望是,對人類性行為進行更正確、更廣泛的瞭解,將使我們更包容自己和彼此、更能尊重非傳統關係的組合,例如同性婚姻或多元結合。最後我們將摒棄這個觀念:男性擁有與生俱來的權力,監視及控制女性的性行為。(掌聲)謝謝。(掌聲)我們將瞭解,不僅同性戀需要出櫃,我們都有需要走出的衣櫃,對嗎?當我們確實走出衣櫃,將瞭解我們需要對抗的不是彼此,而是過時的維多利亞時代人類性行為觀念:將慾望與財產權合而為一,孕育出羞恥和困惑,而非瞭解和同理心。是離開火星和金星的時候了(代表男性和女性的對立關係)。因為事實是,男性來自非洲,女性也來自非洲。

 

謝謝。

 

(掌聲)

 

Chris Anderson:謝謝。

 

Christopher Ryan:謝謝。

 

CA:我有個問題,這令人相當困惑;你試著用演化歷史的觀點告訴我們現在該怎麼做。某人也可以說:看看我們,我們有尖銳的牙齒、肌肉、大腦,我們善於投擲武器。如果你觀察世上許多社會,將發現暴力行為比例相當高,因此非暴力是一種選擇,就像素食主義,但不代表你是什麼樣的人。這與你闡述的觀點有何不同?

 

CR:好,首先關於史前高暴力發生率的證據還有待商榷,但這只是一個例子。當然,你知道,很多人跟我說,只因為我們過去以某種方式生活,不代表我們現在也該如此生活。我同意這種看法,每個人都需要因應現代世界,但身體確實擁有與生俱來的演化軌跡,對嗎?因此你可以只吃麥當勞和奶昔過活,但你的身體會抗議。我們都有慾望,我想這就是叔本華所說的,人類可做想做的事,但無法隨心所欲。因此我反對的是將羞恥與慾望連結在一起。這個觀念是,你愛你的丈夫或妻子,但依然會受到其他人吸引,這表示你有問題、你的婚姻有問題、你的伴侶有問題。我認為許多家庭破碎的原因在於不實際的期待,這源於對人類性行為的錯誤觀點,這就是我試圖解釋的。

 

CA:謝謝,十分精彩的演講,十分感謝。

 

CR:謝謝,Chris。(掌聲)

 

以下為系統擷取之英文原文

 About this Talk

An idea permeates our modern view of relationships: that men and women have always paired off in sexually exclusive relationships. But before the dawn of agriculture, humans may actually have been quite promiscuous. Author Christopher Ryan walks us through the controversial evidence that human beings are sexual omnivores by nature, in hopes that a more nuanced understanding may put an end to discrimination, shame and the kind of unrealistic expectations that kill relationships.

About the Speaker

The co-author of "Sex at Dawn," Christopher Ryan explores the prehistoric roots of human sexuality. Full bio.

Transcript

 

So what I'd like to do is have you raise your hand if you've ever heard a heterosexual couple having sex. Could be the neighbors, hotel room, your parents. Sorry. Okay. Pretty much everybody. Now raise your hand if the man was making more noise than the woman. I see one guy there. It doesn't count if it was you, sir. (Laughter) So his hand's down. And one woman. Okay. Sitting next to a loud guy.

Now what does this tell us? It tells us that human beings make noise when they have sex, and it's generally the woman who makes more noise. This is known as female copulatory vocalization to the clipboard crowd. I wasn't even going to mention this, but somebody told me that Meg Ryan might be here, and she is the world's most famous female copulatory vocalizer. So I thought, got to talk about that. We'll get back to that a little bit later.

Let me start by saying human beings are not descended from apes, despite what you may have heard. We are apes. We are more closely related to the chimp and the bonobo than the African elephant is to the Indian elephant, as Jared Diamond pointed out in one of his early books. We're more closely related to chimps and bonobos than chimps and bonobos are related to any other primate -- gorillas, orangutans, what have you. So we're extremely closely related to them, and as you'll see in terms of our behavior, we've got some relationship as well. So what I'm asking today, the question I want to explore with you today is, what kind of ape are we in terms of our sexuality? Now, since Darwin's day there's been what Cacilda and I have called the standard narrative of human sexual evolution, and you're all familiar with it, even if you haven't read this stuff. The idea is that, as part of human nature, from the beginning of our species' time, men have sort of leased women's reproductive potential by providing them with certain goods and services. Generally we're talking about meat, shelter, status, protection, things like that. And in exchange, women have offered fidelity, or at least a promise of fidelity. Now this sets men and women up in an oppositional relationship. The war between the sexes is built right into our DNA, according to this vision. Right? What Cacilda and I have argued is that no, this economic relationship, this oppositional relationship, is actually an artifact of agriculture, which only arose about 10,000 years ago at the earliest. Anatomically modern human beings have been around for about 200,000 years, so we're talking about five percent, at most, of our time as a modern, distinct species. So before agriculture, before the agricultural revolution, it's important to understand that human beings lived in hunter-gatherer groups that are characterized wherever they're found in the world by what anthropologists called fierce egalitarianism. They not only share things, they demand that things be shared: meat, shelter, protection, all these things that were supposedly being traded to women for their sexual fidelity, it turns out, are shared widely among these societies. Now I'm not saying that our ancestors were noble savages, and I'm not saying modern day hunter-gatherers are noble savages either. What I'm saying is that this is simply the best way to mitigate risk in a foraging context. And there's really no argument about this among anthropologists. All Cacilda and I have done is extend this sharing behavior to sexuality. So we've argued that human sexuality has essentially evolved, until agriculture, as a way of establishing and maintaining the complex, flexible social systems, networks, that our ancestors were very good at, and that's why our species has survived so well.

Now, this makes some people uncomfortable, and so I always need to take a moment in these talks to say, listen, I'm saying our ancestors were promiscuous, but I'm not saying they were having sex with strangers. There were no strangers. Right? In a hunter-gatherer band, there are no strangers. You've known these people your entire life. So I'm saying, yes, there were overlapping sexual relationships, that our ancestors probably had several different sexual relationships going on at any given moment in their adult lives. But I'm not saying they were having sex with strangers. I'm not saying that they didn't love the people they were having sex with. And I'm not saying there was no pair-bonding going on. I'm just saying it wasn't sexually exclusive.

And those of us who have chosen to be monogamous -- my parents, for example, have been married for 52 years monogamously, and if it wasn't monogamously, Mom and Dad, I don't want to hear about it— I'm not criticizing this and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this. What I'm saying is that to argue that our ancestors were sexual omnivores is no more a criticism of monogamy than to argue that our ancestors were dietary omnivores is a criticism of vegetarianism. You can choose to be a vegetarian, but don't think that just because you've made that decision, bacon suddenly stops smelling good. Okay? So this is my point. (Laughter) That one took a minute to sink in, huh?

Now, in addition to being a great genius, a wonderful man, a wonderful husband, a wonderful father, Charles Darwin was also a world-class Victorian prude. All right? He was perplexed by the sexual swellings of certain primates, including chimps and bonobos, because these sexual swellings tend to provoke many males to mate with the females. So he couldn't understand why on Earth would the female have developed this thing if all they were supposed to be doing is forming their pair bond, right? Chimps and bonobos, Darwin didn't really know this, but chimps and bonobos mate one to four times per hour with up to a dozen males per day when they have their sexual swellings. Interestingly, chimps have sexual swellings through 40 percent, roughly, of their menstrual cycle, bonobos 90 percent, and humans are among the only species on the planet where the female is available for sex throughout the menstrual cycle, whether she's menstruating, whether she's post-menopausal, whether she's already pregnant. This is vanishingly rare among mammals. So it's a very interesting aspect of human sexuality. Now, Darwin ignored the reflections of the sexual swelling in his own day, as scientists tend to do sometimes.

So what we're talking about is sperm competition. Now the average human ejaculate has about 300 million sperm cells, so it's already a competitive environment. The question is whether these sperm are competing against other men's sperm or just their own. There's a lot to talk about in this chart. The one thing I'll call your attention to right away is the little musical note above the female chimp and bonobo and human. That indicates female copulatory vocalization. Just look at the numbers. The average human has sex about 1,000 times per birth. If that number seems high for some of you, I assure you it seems low for others in the room. We share that ratio with chimps and bonobos. We don't share it with the other three apes, the gorilla, the orangutan and the gibbon, who are more typical of mammals, having sex only about a dozen times per birth. Humans and bonobos are the only animals that have sex face-to-face when both of them are alive. (Laughter) And you'll see that the human, chimp and bonobo all have external testicles, which in our book we equate to a special fridge you have in the garage just for beer. If you're the kind of guy who has a beer fridge in the garage, you expect a party to happen at any moment, and you need to be ready. That's what the external testicles are. They keep the sperm cells cool so you can have frequent ejaculations. I'm sorry. It's true. The human, some of you will be happy to hear, has the largest, thickest penis of any primate.

Now, this evidence goes way beyond anatomy. It goes into anthropology as well. Historical records are full of accounts of people around the world who have sexual practices that should be impossible given what we have assumed about human sexual evolution. These women are the Mosuo from southwestern China. In their society, everyone, men and women, are completely sexually autonomous. There's no shame associated with sexual behavior. Women have hundreds of partners. It doesn't matter. Nobody cares. Nobody gossips. It's not an issue. When the woman becomes pregnant, the child is cared for by her, her sisters, and her brothers. The biological father is a nonissue. On the other side of the planet, in the Amazon, we've got many tribes which practice what anthropologists call partible paternity. These people actually believe -- and they have no contact among them, no common language or anything, so it's not an idea that spread, it's an idea that's arisen around the world -- they believe that a fetus is literally made of accumulated semen. So a woman who wants to have a child who's smart and funny and strong makes sure she has lots of sex with the smart guy, the funny guy and the strong guy, to get the essence of each of these men into the baby, and then when the child is born, these different men will come forward and acknowledge their paternity of the child. So paternity is actually sort of a team endeavor in this society. So there are all sorts of examples like this that we go through in the book.

Now, why does this matter? Edward Wilson says we need to understand that human sexuality is first a bonding device and only secondarily procreation. I think that's true. This matters because our evolved sexuality is in direct conflict with many aspects of the modern world. The contradictions between what we're told we should feel and what we actually do feel generates a huge amount of unnecessary suffering. My hope is that a more accurate, updated understanding of human sexuality will lead us to have greater tolerance for ourselves, for each other, greater respect for unconventional relationship configurations like same-sex marriage or polyamorous unions, and that we'll finally put to rest the idea that men have some innate, instinctive right to monitor and control women's sexual behavior. (Applause) Thank you. And we'll see that it's not only gay people that have to come out of the closet. We all have closets we have to come out of. Right? And when we do come out of those closets, we'll recognize that our fight is not with each other, our fight is with an outdated, Victorian sense of human sexuality that conflates desire with property rights, generates shame and confusion in place of understanding and empathy. It's time we moved beyond Mars and Venus, because the truth is that men are from Africa and women are from Africa.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Chris Anderson: Thank you. Christopher Ryan: Thank you.

CA: So a question. It's so perplexing, trying to use arguments about evolutionary history to turn that into what we ought to do today. Someone could give a talk and say, look at us, we've got these really sharp teeth and muscles and a brain that's really good at throwing weapons, and if you look at lots of societies around the world, you'll see very high rates of violence. Nonviolence is a choice like vegetarianism, but it's not who you are. How is that different from the talk you gave?

CR: Well first of all, the evidence for high levels of violence in prehistory is very debatable. But that's just an example. Certainly, you know, lots of people say to me, just because we lived a certain way in the past doesn't mean we should live that way now, and I agree with that. Everyone has to respond to the modern world. But the body does have its inherent evolved trajectories. And so you could live on McDonald's and milkshakes, but your body will rebel against that. We have appetites. I think it was Schopenhauer who said, a person can do what they want but not want what they want. And so what I'm arguing against is the shame that's associated with desires. It's the idea that if you love your husband or wife but you still are attracted to other people, there's something wrong with you, there's something wrong with your marriage, something wrong with your partner. I think a lot of families are fractured by unrealistic expectations that are based upon this false vision of human sexuality. That's what I'm trying to get at.

CA: Thank you. Communicated powerfully. Thanks a lot.

 

 


留下您對本課程的評論
標題:
您目前為非會員,留言名稱將顯示「匿名非會員」
只能進行20字留言

留言內容:

驗證碼請輸入6 + 1 =

標籤

現有標籤:1
新增標籤:


有關本課程的討論

課程討論
太棒了!感謝翻譯!真希望這本書也能有出版社翻譯成中文,極富意義呀,反思質疑我們現在的社會關係模式。

kuonainon, 2015-08-18 20:57:38

Creative Commons授權條款 本站一切著作係採用 Creative Commons 授權條款授權。
協助推廣單位: