Carole Hooven: "It is obvious that men are much more moved by sex than women"

The writer Carole Hooven.

Carole Hooven (Boston, USA, 56 years old) affirms that “sex is real, it is biological, it is in your body, not in your head”.

She has been co-director of university studies in the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University (USA) and she is aware that in certain environments these statements can be scandalous.

“Your body and the type of gamete [egg and sperm] cells it produces has many implications, but it doesn't determine anyone's worth or rights, although sex may be important in some settings, such as prison cells, competitions. sports or in the data we collect on sexual violence, ”he continues.

In his opinion, it is important to be able to talk about sexual differences in order to make the best decisions and it is necessary to be able to include the data provided by scientific work in these discussions.

With that intention, she has written

(Arpa 2022), a work in which Hooven takes advantage of her experience as a professor at Harvard to analyze the studies on the role of this hormone in the differences between the sexes in humans and animals, and mixes them with stories to support your thesis.

In a conversation via video call, the professor says that she understands, in part, the reticence towards certain statements made in the name of science.

“There is a history of science being misused to push nefarious political agendas.

Someone can observe that there is a greater caring instinct in women than in men and use this to say that women should stay home with the children.

It does not work like that.

I want to break the idea that the natural should be the justification for the society we build”, she argues.

"So I understand the resistance to some facts being published, but I don't think the answer to that misuse of science is to lie about reality," she says.

Ask.

Do you think that gender roles arise from previous biological conditions, that they are not something completely created by culture?

Response.

Nothing as complex as saying whether gender roles are something wholly social or wholly biological.

All cultures have something we could call sex roles.

Gender is a complicated term, so for now I'll talk about sex roles.

There are norms of behavior for men and women in all cultures.

There are some very strong and consistent norms across cultures that also match what we know about biological differences in human and nonhuman animals.

And most allow greater freedom to male sexuality than to female.

All of that is very consistent across cultures and I think it has a strong biological influence.

However, culture is extremely important in shaping how sexual differences that may have biological roots play out in a society.

There are very basic patterns that are not reversed in any culture.

I know of no culture where female promiscuity is celebrated and encouraged and male promiscuity severely punished.

And although there is variation in the standards of male and female promiscuity, you don't see the pattern reversed.

This happens in sexual behavior, but there are also guidelines on aggressiveness and how to express it by sex.

There are no cultures in which female physical aggressiveness is rewarded and celebrated and male physical aggressiveness is punished.

But culture is always strongly influenced by biology and biology by culture.

Ask.

When dealing with these issues, there are people who are afraid that looking for or recognizing differences between the sexes is a way of justifying inequalities

Response.

We might think that if we found a strong genetic influence on increased male promiscuity, which I think is true, that would mean that it is acceptable for husbands to cheat on their wives.

It is not like this.

But it means that there is a reality that we have to understand in order to work with it, instead of denying it or distorting it, even if it is with the intention of achieving equality between the sexes.

There are many social problems caused by the differences in sexual appetite between the sexes and what that means for relationships, for society and for the happiness of all.

We should stop denying the facts and one of the facts that we should start spreading is that because something exists in nature, it is not necessarily good.

Sickness is not good and it is natural.

It is an example that it is not necessary to prove that something is natural for it to be good.

It doesn't matter what its origin is.

Suppose that the greater aggressiveness of men and the greater number of physical aggressions perpetrated by men is influenced by having a Y chromosome that causes them to have more testosterone.

But we also know that environment and cultural norms make a huge difference in how people express physical aggression or how often murders or rapes are committed.

There are places in the world where there are no strong norms against rape, or it is even encouraged in certain circumstances, while in others it is strongly punished.

Biology is not destiny.

If we are able to recognize those facts about the naturalistic fallacy or the myth of biological destiny, it is easier for us to talk about reality and social changes and policies and laws that we want to support.

I want to break the idea that what is natural should be the justification for the society we build

Q.

In the book you talk about a fundamental difference between men and women, and between males and females of other species of mammals.

The former produce many small and, to some extent, cheap reproductive cells continuously, such as sperm, and the latter produce large, much fewer cells.

This means that both sexes have had different incentives throughout history regarding their behavior and that creates friction in coexistence.

A.

If you're not an evolutionary biologist, it's hard to appreciate the historical depth of billions of years of sexual reproduction and what that means for different behavioral strategies.

In mammals, moreover, females bear the cost of fertilization and internal gestation, it is not like fish or frogs, and then we also continue to grow the young with our body, breastfeeding them.

The imbalance in reproductive investment is tremendous and has a huge impact.

Males and females evolved in an environment in which, from the moment we reached reproductive maturity, we were having children and nursing them, throughout our reproductive lives.

The way we women live now is strange from an evolutionary point of view, to some extent freed from that burden.

But our psychology has not yet completely freed itself.

Women typically don't want to have as many sexual partners, in part because each possible conception is a huge energy burden that doesn't exist for men.

So we still have these differences in reproductive psychology and sex hormones condition and promote many of these differences.

And the differences are not limited to sex and aggressiveness.

There are also differences in professional interests.

Risk taking at work is one of these differences.

For males, taking risks can shorten their lives, but if taking those risks has important reproductive advantages, because it gives them more opportunities to reproduce, it can pay off.

But that's not necessarily the case for females, who need to live long and healthy lives to maximize their reproductive capacity.

These differences exist, although the evidence for hormonal contributions to them is not as strong as for aggressiveness or sexual behaviour.

Culture plays a strong role, but it's hard to tell which part is biological and which part is cultural, because culture reinforces those differences.

There is an intense interaction.

But in my opinion, aspiring to an identical result, to having an identical number of men and women in different professions, is wrong, because I think there are differences in preferences.

I believe that we should aspire to equal opportunities and salaries.

It would be great if teaching or care were better paid, but also, in some professions where there are more men, there are brutal physical demands that deserve compensation.

I know of no culture in which female promiscuity is celebrated and encouraged and male promiscuity severely punished.

Q.

But changes in an ecosystem change the biology of the animals that live in it.

In an environment where the need for aggressiveness to get ahead or mate is lower, testosterone levels can also drop.

R.

Yes. It is difficult to obtain good data on these subjects, because although there are differences in testosterone levels or its activity depending on the culture in which a man lives;

we cannot be sure that this variation is due to culture.

For example, there are significant cultural differences between Japan and Spain, and there are also differences in testosterone.

Asian men tend to have less than European men.

It may have to do with culture, but we also have evidence that there are genetic differences that influence testosterone production and activity.

This difference is found in the gene that codes for the testosterone receptor, which means that with the same amount of testosterone, on average, Japanese men would have a lower response than Spanish men.

We also have evidence that the environment can affect a man's testosterone levels in a similar way to what happens in other animals.

Fatherhood, for example.

From an evolutionary standpoint, having high testosterone isn't always a good thing, because a lower level can help more offspring survive.

It's not all about getting as many copulations as possible.

Men are important to their children.

So cultural norms can change and lower testosterone levels.

But I can't say that there is evidence that a change in testosterone levels in a culture has reduced aggressiveness levels, that there is a causal relationship.

In some populations in East Africa, the cultural norm is for men to have a very intense relationship with their children, with a lot of physical interaction, holding them, feeding them.

That type of fatherhood is highly valued and in those men the testosterone levels are lower;

that contact with the babies causes them to descend.

This effect is something that characterizes parents everywhere, in human and some non-human animals.

In environments where men take care of their children, they have a better chance of surviving and testosterone levels tend to drop.

That is a product of the culture.

And we see other cultures, more warlike, in which contact with children is less and we do not observe that drop in testosterone.

In environments where men care for their children, they have a better chance of surviving and testosterone levels tend to drop

P.

In the book you talk about differences between the behavior of gays and lesbians.

Could this have to do with the way men and women are brought up, regardless of whether they are gay or straight, or can it be explained to some extent by biological differences?

A.

Heterosexual men would have as many sexual partners as homosexuals if there were as many women as men with the same compelling desire.

Women feel desire and have high libidos, but it tends to express itself to the fullest in different types of relationships.

They prefer, on average, to express their sexuality and to have sex when there is an emotional connection.

Things are changing around the world, and we could argue if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but still, on average, men have a much lower bar when it comes to reaching a modicum of emotional intimacy before having sex.

That is the reality, although its origin can also be discussed, but I think it is obvious that men are much more moved by sex than women.

And that difference is partly in male biology, in testosterone.

It is my conclusion after 20 years of experience studying this hormone in animals and humans.

It is a pattern that gay men have more sexual partners than lesbians.

It is an observation, there is no moral judgment.

And it has to do with testosterone.

A woman who makes the transition and takes testosterone notices a very important change regarding the sexual impulse, the desire that she feels when looking at parts of the body, despite having been raised as women.

I have heard these testimonies, and some are included in the book, from many trans men.

And it coincides with the scientific literature, which shows that sexual desire is one of the most powerful psychological responses after taking testosterone and goes from normal levels in a woman to normal levels in a man.

It is not just that libido is increased, but the nature of sexual desire changes.

Of course, this is not the same for all people, but these men experience that reduction in the need for sexual intimacy before sex or the attraction to the body as a sexual object, instead of feeling that sex and sexual attraction have to do with a complete human being.

That kind of objectification is increased by testosterone.

And the change is also seen in the other direction, when a man begins to live as a woman.

You see a reduction in sexual urge, which, by the way, many trans women see as a relief.

And it's not that they don't feel desire or pleasure from sex, it's something other than the constant drive associated with testosterone.

You can follow