From Reproductive to Recreational Sex

Sexual relationships are about attraction. We see something we like in a person, and we want to spend more time with that person; we want to have sex with that person.

Years ago, it was relatively straightforward. We were effectively on a search, seeking out “the one” – the perfect partner for us; the person we wanted to have a baby with; the person we wanted to spend the rest of our lives with, raising our offspring together.

We may have been matched with someone or, more likely, met someone; if we liked them, we built a relationship with them. We might not have realised it, but the right partner was based on genetic attraction: we saw something in them that we liked, and sub-consciously we thought that, with our two sets of genes combined through reproduction, we could create something that was genetically advantageous.

By reproducing together, we would thereby advance our genetic standing in relation to our environment, thereby enhancing our genetic survival prospects.

Attraction was genetically driven. If we fancied somebody, then our genes were identifying them as genetically desirable. Our genes were communicating to us. They were guiding us on who would be a good genetic match and who would contribute to our genetic well-being.

As such, our behaviour in choosing a sexual partner would be controlled by our genes. As their vehicles, we merely did as we were told, behaving in accordance with their wishes and their instruction.

However, it seems there has been a shift in this arrangement.

As a species, we are increasingly doing our own thing. Relationships are less genetically driven. This is most evident in the growth of our sexual freedom and permissiveness. With behavioural changes – such as the shift towards casual sex, the adoption of carefree sexual practices such as being “friends with benefits”; the having of more sexual partners in our lives; the having of multiple sexual relationships at the same time – it seems that we have a changed attitude towards sex.

Sexual activity has become more of a recreational activity rather than a reproductive one. In fact, sex is no longer primarily a functional act, pursued in order to achieve the specific purpose of reproduction. Sex is more about pleasure and gratification, whether that be individually or as a shared experience.

The link between sex and reproduction has largely been lost.

This has been caused by three key factors:

• Advances in contraception. Reliable contraception has enabled us to freely pursue our sexual inclinations without their necessarily being any genetic or reproductive consequences. It means that sexual activity has effectively been deregulated. Contraception has given us our sexual freedom. We can do our own thing – disregarding any genetic instruction. We can have sex just because we want to have sex. After all, there are no genetic risks to our actions.

It might even, for some, be the case that our choice of partner is determined wholly by the levels of sexual pleasure we get from that partner rather than by any consideration of their levels of attractiveness.

• The growth of the state. With the state as a provider of welfare and support, the consequences of our reproductive activity are not so impactful on us as individuals. Unplanned or unwanted conceptions can be tolerated – the state will provide for us. We don’t therefore have to maximise our reproductive returns. If we get it wrong, if we reproduce with an imperfect partner, if we have a poor genetic outcome, then the state will help us to manage that situation. Weak, sub-standard, undesirable genes can still survive within a governed structure.
• Changing attitudes within society. Reproduction, the passing on of our genes, has lost some of the importance it used to have. Unlike throughout the rest of Nature, it’s no longer considered our singular duty. We are just not so driven to reproduce. As a society, we have become much more accepting of other lifestyles and behaviours. For instance, gay relationships and career-focused individuals. Choosing to abstain from reproduction is not thought of as being misguided or abnormal; to be childless is no longer considered an act of negligence or misconduct.

These developments have been driven by our increasing mastery of our environment. Nature does not dominate our lives as much as it used to. Science, technology, invention and innovation, coupled with the pursuit of a societal existence, have meant that we are not as constrained or as helpless as we used to be. We have gained a level of freedom from Nature, from having to live by Nature’s dictates.

Given these new circumstances, the relationship we have with our genes is also changing. In Nature, we had to do as our genes commanded us – it was the only way we could survive a challenging environment. But with human advancement, we have acquired some detachment and protection from Nature’s environment. It means we no longer have to live according to our Genetic Priority – doing what is in the best interests of our genes. Our genes have therefore ceased to be the focus and driving force of our behaviour.

As a consequence, we have begun to ignore, or even rebel against, our genes. The genetic voices that used to guide us are not as loud as they used to be – too often they now go unheard and unheeded. We no longer always do as we are told. We are much more inclined to pursue our own agendas and whims.

Some might argue that this is a good thing, that we have been freed from servitude, from the absolute rule of our genes. The trouble is that this is not what Nature intended; it breaks all the rules of Nature, and it challenges Nature’s supremacy.

Do we really think we can separate ourselves and pursue such an independent course of action? Do we really think we can accomplish more than we might under Nature’s omnipotent regulation? Do we really think that, in the pursuit of this course, we actually know what we are doing or what we are trying to achieve?

The danger is that once trends are created, they are very difficult to break free from. This is particularly true in the field of genetics. Once a course is established and benefits are deemed to be accruing from it, there is a natural inclination to continue on that course. After all, if something is working for us, why would we want to change it?

Even more significantly, progressive trends can get hard-wired into us. It may even, for instance, be the case that the pursuit of sex as a recreational rather than as a functional activity has become genetically enshrined. A genetic mutation – perhaps related to the release of endorphins – may have occurred that increasingly makes us seek out sexual pleasure and gratification. As such, having been created, there is an innate tendency for this genetic construct to be enhanced, becoming stronger and more prevalent as it is passed on to subsequent generations.

It is a developmental course that, all too easily, we could lose control of – we are already at a stage when pregnancy is often seen as an unwanted by-product of sexual activity. In the future, reproduction may become completely separated from sexual activity. Those genetic voices that previously gave us guidance will be silenced, and human reproduction will be transferred to the clinic or laboratory to be managed by us.

Our sexual motivation has changed and continues to change. It is losing its genetic purpose. The prioritisation of our genetic futures seems to have been relegated. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to see what meaningful, purposeful objective we have put in its place. And that’s where the danger arises: aimless and unmanaged, we drift towards an uncertain future.

At least, when we were guided by our genes, there was some greater goal. We were doing things for a reason.

For other interesting blogs on this subject area, check out Articles or the Article Index