The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris (Link Between Lips and Labia? Buttocks and Breasts?)

[Druidus]

(Another long OP for a thread, I know. But it's genuinely interesting, and I'm not forcing you to read if you don't want to. IMO, it's worth reading, and I hope it can prove to be entertaining and thought-provoking for at least a few other people.)

The Naked Ape was a book written by the zoologist Desmond Morris in the 60's. It was meant to be a unique look at the human animal, not from a purely anthropological/sociological perspective, but, rather, treating the human as just another species, just one more animal. Obviously being nearly 60 years old, a lot of the ideas and information in the book is outdated, but it's still an interesting and enjoyable read.

You can read the whole book here, if you are so inclined:

http://www.evolbiol.ru/large_files/naked_ape.pdf

Throughout the book there is a lot of talk about human sexuality, just as a zoologist would write about the sexuality of any other animal. One of the ideas that comes up is that when humans became bipedal, the species needed to develop new physical traits to signify different things on a sexual level. Our quadrupedal relatives among the apes tend to use various sexual signals located around the rear, the buttocks. Red or blue colouring, large size, swelling, etc. all of these are used as indicators of female sexual receptivity in various non-human apes. But when humans started being obligate bipeds, the buttocks became less suitable as prime sexual signalling areas. It's just not the same when standing upright, it's not possible for the buttocks to swell to the same degree, nor is it practical to use colour changes in the area. Besides that, now the vaginal opening is not easily penetrate when the female is standing upright, she'd have to be bent over for penetration to be practically possible.

So the theory goes that instead, evolution had to happen that would promote frontal sexual signals, something to replace quadrupedal buttocks signalling. Morris writes that human breasts became analogues of the buttocks, in order to provide a strong sexual signal that was easily seen despite our new bipedal habits. Both are large, round, symmetrical, globes of flesh, and both are strongly attractive to human males. There's really no other reason for human breasts to be so large; it's not as if other apes have such large breasts. In most apes, the norm is to be quite flat-chested. Morris states that the only real reason for the relative enlargement of breasts in female humans is because they were a new sexual signal that could entice our males while females were upright. And they swell when a female is sexually aroused, as well as flush with red colouring, clearly fulfilling their role a sexual signals.

But it doesn't stop there. Morris also makes the claim that the unusually large and distinct human lips are also a product of sexual selection. While bipedal, human-ancestral males could not see the vaginal labia, they could easily see the mouth of a female. So, instead, our lips became redder, larger, and rounder, simulating, if not perfectly, the vaginal labia. Males have them too only because it's a trait that both sexes had and magnification in one sex would have effects on the other. Still, in females (especially during child-birthing ages), the lips are larger, rounder, and more voluptuous than males, in general. This new trend in human sexual signalling is said to have contributed toward the evolution of human pair-bonding and eventually our semi-monagomy (as well as being the root of kissing - and may have connections to oral sex). Just like breasts, lips swell and redden/darken during sexual arousal, providing important sexual signalling to our distant ancestors.

You may think that it's obvious that breasts are not buttocks, and lips are not labia, and you'd be right. But our ancestors were not consciously deciding that they looked like their counterparts. It was a subconscious assessment of these parts of the body that determined their utility as sexual signals. At first there was a very small similarity, and because we were now upright and the previous sexual signals were no longer practical/adequate, those of us who had lips/breasts that were more like the old sexual signals had a competitive advantage, because these parts of the body were very visible when upright, they were in a prime position to act as sexual signallers accessible from the front of the body. Evolution rarely creates entirely new organs or body parts. It uses what's already there, and in our case, in females, it was breasts and lips. Consider, too, the use of reddening lipstick; a practice that goes far back into our prehistory, a means for females to amplify their sexuality by altering the appearance of their lips. Intriguingly, the most common colour has always been red: the same colour that lips (and labia) normally turn when their owner is sexually aroused. And applying lipstick can also provide the illusion of bigger (or swollen) lips, exactly as they'd do (or labia would do) when sexually aroused.

Excerpt from "The Naked Ape" from the page when this lip/labia and breasts/buttocks idea is first mentioned:

(I hope everyone can see that...)

Now, it's not only females who developed stronger sexual signalling that is visible from the front. Males, too, amplified a trait. Specifically, penis size. We have the largest penis/body-size ratio of any ape. Gorillas have an absurdly tiny penis compared to humans, even without adjusting for size difference, and chimpanzees and orangutan fair little better. Even bonobos are only slightly larger than chimps. This is because penis size became a more potent visual sexual stimuli/signal when we became obligate bipeds. While on all fours, the penis is typically not very visible, so it is not a prime body part to use for sexual signalling, it's more of a tool to get the job done (pleasurably *wink* ). But humans, when standing upright, can easily turn their gaze towards the penis, it's just sitting there, right in the middle of the body, between the head and the feet.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that bonobos have redder/larger lips, larger/rounder breasts, and slightly larger penes than do chimpanzees. Their sexual habits are more similar to ancient humans, too. Humans are an incredibly pro-sexual species. We love sex, we'll have it even if not in oestrus, we don't care! We use it for pair-bonding, pleasure, to reduce tension, and sometimes even to resolve disputes. Bonobos do all of that too. It's fairly intriguing that bonobos and humans possess such close similarities in sexual signalling traits and sexual behaviours. For example, here are comparison pics between chimpanzees and bonobos:

Chimpanzee breasts, clearly rather small and flat:

Bonobo breasts, clearly larger and rounder than a chimp's, more "human-like":

(Above bonobo walking bipedal. It's common in bonobos, they often walk upright, even if not obligately. )

Chimpanzee lips, smaller, less-defined and less red; less human-like:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...O-ILJMuyhdZlVhyS8-tV5kll0QUyYp_wRLZrKmCl3kqhI. (You'll have to visit the link for this one as I'm maxed out on images per post.)

-Bonobo lips, larger, more defined, and redder; more human-like:

Note that bonobos, while not obligate bipeds, very commonly walk on two legs, whether to carry infants or tools/branches/etc., wade through water, display sexually, or for other reasons. They walk upright a significantly greater proportion of their time than do chimpanzees. As well, they kiss frequently, bond through sex more, copulate face to face more, have more oral sex, as well as doing a number of other "human-ish" things that chimps either don't do, or do much less of. Considering all this, it seems to support the lips/labia breasts/buttocks argument.

Finally, one more link and excerpt:

Excerpt:

Take a woman's lips. These puffy, everted organs are unique among primates, Morris tells us. But while men's lips become thinner in adulthood, more like those of monkeys and apes, women's remain pillowy and everted throughout the childbearing years, when they serve as sexual signals. During sexual arousal they become redder, engorged and sensitive, mimicking the genital labia.

Women throughout history have highlighted their lips for sexual purposes, from classical Greeks who applied lip colorings of dyes mixed with human saliva, sheep sweat and crocodile dung to contemporary Americans who pay surgeons to enlarge their lips by inserting synthetic material, freeze-dried skin or body fat.

Women's everted lips are a good example of neoteny, the extension of childlike characteristics into adulthood, an evolutionary process Morris returns to frequently throughout the book. Women have more neotenous physical traits than men do. For example, pound for pound the average adult woman has about twice as much body fat, an infantile trait, as the average man. Women also have higher, more childlike voices and smoother, more finely boned baby faces, traits that Morris maintains evolved to elicit protective responses in their male mates

 

[Druidus]

(I'd like to note that I am extremely grateful that modern cosmetics has advanced beyond "lip colorings of dyes mixed with human saliva, sheep sweat and crocodile dung". Lol, seriously, thank you cosmetic science.)

Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/books/review/28FISHERL.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

Taken altogether, I think there is some compelling evidence for the lips/labia breasts/buttocks hypothesis. It seems to make a lot of sense to me, and I'd love to learn more in order to confirm or refute the idea.

So what do you think about sexual signalling in humans? Do you agree with the idea of our lips and breasts being originally propelled towards their characteristic human appearance as frontal sexual indicators/signallers? If not, why do you disagree? If yes, do you have any more information that aids the idea? What do you think of the bonobo's similarities with humans concerning their relatively more commonly practiced bipedalism (when compared to chimps) and their more human-like-than-a-chimp lips and breasts (as well as to a limited extent, their penes)?

Off-topic, I've had the idea in the past that perhaps the split between human and chimp ancestors happened slightly before the split between human and bonobo ancestors. Obviously it wasn't that cut and dried, but it's possible that we are a tad more closely related to bonobos than chimps, offering a potential explanation for their greater similarity with us. I don't know for sure, but it's a neat thought. What do you think about this?

 

[Valjean]

I enjoy reading your posts, Druidus, despite their length. (Heck, back in my day we actually read whole books, which frequently went on for hundreds of pages -- if you can believe it.) I have a yellowing copy of Naked Ape and several other books by Morris somewhere in my library.

Sexual mimicracy is widespread among monkeys and apes. No reason we should be an exception.
As for the chimp/bonobo thing, we may more closely resemble bonobos physically, but, behaviourally, we're chimps.

 

[Druidus]

I enjoy reading your posts, Druidus, despite their length. (Heck, back in my day we actually read whole books, which frequently went on for hundreds of pages -- if you can believe it.) I have a yellowing copy of Naked Ape and several other books by Morris somewhere in my library.

lol, thanks. I have noticed a trend toward "info bites" as opposed to longer and more detailed articles/books nowadays, at the very least on the internet.

Sexual mimicracy is widespread among monkeys and apes. No reason we should be an exception.

I agree. Here's an example suggested by Morris (gelada baboons):

The chest of a gelada baboon:

The rear of gelada baboons:

Gelada baboons spend a lot of time in a sitting position, and, therefore, buttocks-based sexual signals are not practical for much of their time. Chest analogues of the buttocks have evolved to deal with this problem, just like in humans. Of course, the two don't appear exactly the same, but, then, neither do human breasts and buttocks. The point is that the similarity is great enough to act as strong sexual indicators.

As for the chimp/bonobo thing, we may more closely resemble bonobos physically, but, behaviourally, we're chimps.

But it doesn't have to be that way. There's a theory that primates have dual modes of functioning, one of them like the chimpanzees, and one like the bonobo. I can't recall who conducted it, but there was a study of a certain New World monkey, wherein all of the dominant males had succumbed to illness and/or predation in their population. Where before the monkeys had functioned with a "chimp-like" set of behaviours, without the influence of the dominant monkeys they switched to a set of behaviours more akin to the bonobo. I'll try to find it.

There is another theory that it is varying thyroid hormone levels that cause many of the differences between chimpanzees and bonobos. If this is true, than the same could potentially be applied to humans. Link:

Differing Thyroid Levels May Determine Behavioral differences in Bonobos and Chimpanzees : Animals : Nature World News

Prescott, of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, did some great work to illustrate the two-systems theory of human/primate behaviour. I think you'd like his conclusions, Seyorni, and they are relevant to the subject at hand. They show that the reasons why modern humans, particularly in industrialized "Western" cultures, appear to be more chimp-like than bonobo-like are rooted primarily in our cultural environments, and are not inherent in human genetic structure and/or brain structure/function (well, obviously it is due to our brain structure/function, but the structure and function of the brain is a byproduct of how the brain develops in relation with the environment during our infancy, childhood, and adolescence [the critical periods in brain development]). Ultimately, it boils down to mainly cultural reasons, for examples, attitudes towards sex, attitudes towards violence, attitudes towards different models of rearing children, attitudes towards women and/or varying degrees of matriarchal functioning, etc.. The environment that a person grows up in and the cultural influences he/she is immersed in are the main reason why we turn out as either chimp-like or bonobo-like, whilst we DO have the capacity/potential for both modes. There have been and still are human cultures that result in bonobo-like behaviour, it's just that, today, anyway, the dominant culture/s in much (or most) of the world is/are directly opposed to the ideals of these bonobo-cultures.

Here are a few good links exploring Prescott's ideas and conclusions:

http://www.violence.de/prescott/letters/Profiles_Peaceful_v_Violent.pdf
http://www.violence.de/prescott/ttf/cultbrain.pdf
Article: Alienation of Affection

And, last, but not least, the full Prescott Report:

The Prescott Report

Excerpt (bold/emphasis added by me):

III. Cross-Cultural Studies On Violent and Peaceful Cultures

As powerful as the laboratory animal isolation rearing studies are for elucidating the specific sensory systems and brain structures involved in child rearing and their ultimate consequence for violent or peaceful behaviors, it is necessary to confirm these insights and findings at the human level. It is for these reasons, that I embarked on a series of cross-cultural and other studies to confirm that the specific sensory systems of body touch and body movement are crucial for the development of affectional bonding between mother and infant; and that these variables are powerfully predictive of whether an individual or culture that are reared with or without "affectional bonding", will develop either peaceful or violent adult behaviors.

Thus, I searched the Human Relations Area Files, the repository of data on "primitive" or pre-industrial cultures, to evaluate this hypothesis. R.B. Textor, in his "Cross-Cultural Summary", provided a statistical data bank on 400 primitive cultures where all available information on these 400 primitive cultures were intercorrelated to determine the nature and strength of their interrelationships. My SAD theory predicted that those primitive cultures characterized by a high degree of maternal-infant body contact, specifically, carrying the infant on the body of the mother or caretaker throughout the day, would result in those cultures being very peaceful; conversely, those cultures that were characterized by minimal maternal-infant body contact would be very violent cultures.

I selected all those "primitive" cultures that had information on those specific child rearing practices; measures of their violence; and whether premarital sex was permitted or punished. The cultural anthropologists that evaluated these different behaviors were all different and were not knowledgeable of how these cultures were rated on the other variables. Barry, Bacon and Child evaluated the degree of maternal-infant body contact; Philip E. Slater evaluated the degree of violence which was the most extreme measure of violence in the HRAF, namely, "torture, mutilation and killing of enemy captured in warfare"; and Ford and Beach; and John T. Westbrook evaluated pre-marital sexual behaviors.

There were 49 primitive cultures in which information was available on all three of these variables and they constituted the sample for my study. The infant physical affectional variable– by itself– accurately predicted the violence and non-violence in 36 of the 49 cultures which is a 73% correct classification. Subsequent information from cultural anthropologists provided corrective information on three cultures that were erroneously classified and their re-classification resulted in 39 of the 49 or 80% of the primitive cultures being correctly classified with respect to their violence and non-violence. Thus, the predictive power of the infant physical affectional variable, alone, was established at 80%.

The remaining 10 cultures were correctly classified with information on their sexual behaviors. Specifically, four of the ten cultures were characterized by high infant physical affection and high adult physical violence when it should have been low. All four of these cultures punished premarital sexuality which accounted for their violence. Six of the ten cultures were characterized by low infant physical affection and low adult physical violence when it should have been high. All six of these cultures permitted premarital sexuality which accounted for their peaceful behaviors. In short, the deprivation of early infant physical affection can be compensated for later in life by permitted sexual pleasure in adolescence. Conversely, the advantages of early infant physical affection can be negated later in life through the denial of sexual pleasure during adolescence.

In short, my SAD theory that utilized two measures of physical affectional pleasure during the formative periods of brain development, 1) maternal-infant relationship; and 2) adolescent sexual development, could accurately predict with 100% accuracy the violence and non-violence of these 49 primitive cultures that are distributed throughout the world. There were 29 (59%) peaceful cultures and 20 (41%) violent cultures in this study.

There is no other theory or data base that I am aware of that can make this kind of behavioral prediction and which can specify the sensory processes and brain mechanisms that mediate these behaviours. It is emphasized that without the knowledge gained from the controlled animal primate laboratory studies of maternal-social deprivation (isolation rearing) this cross-cultural study and my subsequent cross-cultural studies would not have been possible.

So bonobos could, theoretically, end up with a chimp-like nature if they were raised in a chimp-like cultural environment. It is only their good fortune to be exposed to bonobo culture during critical development periods that allows them to end up as they do. According to the two-systems theory of primate behaviour, it's largely culture that decides our orientation along the chimp-bonobo spectrum, just as it is in other primates.

 

[Druidus]

It's all in how we treat our young, the cultures we/they grow up within, and how we react biologically/physiologically to those cultures/environments. We don't have to be chimpanzees, but our views (or, rather, the views of the majority) on religion, sexuality, childrearing, etc., ultimately, are what cause our pro-chimp-behaviour nature in adulthood. These cultural attitudes must be changed, in the interest of a brighter and more egalitarian future, and so that we can claim our "behaviourally bonobo" birthright. Until we do change the perspective of the masses in this regard, we will remain culturally stymied. It is unfortunate that at least two of the most dominant world-religions are directly opposed to bonobo-type ideals; IMO, religion (particularly patriarchal, anti-sex, "pro-dominance" religions, in general) is one of the major influences maintaining these chimp-like and culturally "backwards" ideals and views.