Taylor Chen

Anthro3: Dis133
The classic Nature vs. Nurture debate is packaged under the title Is sex natural?
of an article that illuminates the current propensity of scientists and people alike to
treat sex from a bottom-up view: culture, Newitz writes, grew out of our bodies
(2003:5). The article avoids accounting for sex as a cultural factor preceding the
bodily one; his efforts to explain the sociobiological paradigm of recent scientific
thinkers through models and popular literature concludes without leaving a large
opening for culture as a potentially strong factor in deciding erotic behavior. A
broader picture is needed for the sake of scientific fairness; this requires an
examination into Margaret Meads and Ruth Benedicts studies of the Samoan and
Pueblo cultures, respectively
The primary focus of Newitz is theories of evolution and biology within the
context of sex. He identifies in recent history a growing trend of scientists and popular
culture towards a belief that evolution is still shaping our sex drives (2003:3). There are
two diametric models presented, the jungle model emphasizing human conflict and
selfishness (2003:3) in sex relationships between mates, and that of cooperation and
diversity (2003:3) as a competing model of sexual selection. Newitz further illuminates
through scientific studies of animals and genetics the role of evolution in influencing our
natural sex behavior. Thus, in a sense, nothing is unnatural (2003:6), or moreover,
everything from rape, homosexuality, and pornography (2003:2) may be naturally
explained through an evolutionary framework. The reintroduction of biology has
muddled the previously accepted view that sexual behavior (among many other things)

originates from culture, which in turn precedes biology. Newitz has yet to take one step
further, in analyzing the social variations of sexual preference among cultures in
homosexuality, rape, and pornography. To do so requires an investigation into Meads and
Bendicts fieldwork in the Samoan villages and the Pueblo tribes.
Meads study in Samoa describes adolescent girls with freedom to sexual
experimentation, unhindered by what is normally considered in other cultures to be very
imposing agents, i.e. parents and peers, etc. Although arguably a reflection of
evolutionary sexual drives, this is insignificant insofar as the economic necessity of sex is
a product of cultural constructions. Personal attachment in this culture is minimal; since
feelings of group solidarity run high within Samoa, love and marriages are generally
portrayed as a practical and economic model for existence. The widely accepted
conception of love and love-making is undermined by the minimal influence of excessive
personal affection. If sexual selection is chosen on a primarily economic and practical
scale superimposed by culture, where does nature fit in? The idea that nature gave rise to
culture is not apparent, even though love roams promiscuously for adolescent girls.
Sexual drives and behavior have instead been subjugated to the demands of culture and
society. The same for Benedict is reflected in the Pueblo tribes. Here, the mild attitudes
towards love and sex contrasts sharply against the background of western culture; even
adultery is handled by a formal exercise of ritual.
There is little insight gained from biology as to the Pueblos ceremonious,
economic, and practical attitudes towards love and love-making. Indeed, the
contradictions between nature and nurture are not given adequate light within the article,

nor can the questions of sexual variations be answered by a polarized account of

evolutionary biology.