Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex reviewed by Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP

What would you say if I told you that women influence their fertility through masturbation? That men adjust the number of sperm in each ejaculate according to the relative likelihood that their female partner may have been unfaithful recently? That women are most likely to have sex with an extradyadic partner near the peak of their monthly fertility and are most likely to have sex with their regular sex partner during the infertile phase? Or that the timing of a woman's orgasm within a given sexual episode of coitus influences whether she will become pregnant from that act of intercourse? These are a just a few of the basic biological phenomena upon which the extremely fascinating and revolutionary book, Sperm Wars, is based.
Many readers of JSR may be unfamiliar with the author, Robin Baker, a biologist working in England, whose primary publication outlet for the unique work conducted with colleague Mark Bellis has been the journal, Animal Behavior (Baker & Bellis, 1993a, b; Bellis & Baker, 1990). These earlier empirical articles were based on questionnaire data as well as analyses
of hundreds of human ejaculates collected during masturbation and coitus, including many samples of the "flowback" from women's vaginas. Sperm Wars is also based on more recent work in which Baker and Bellis documented what occurs inside the woman's body at the moments of ejaculation and female orgasm using a fiber-optic endoscope attached to the underside of a man's penis. As Baker commented, those images "completely changed my scientific understanding of what happens at the most critical moments during sex" (p. xvii). Sperm Wars has that effect on its readers as well.
The descriptions of what occurs biologically during sexual activity directly challenge many notions we were taught, and may continue to teach to our students, regarding male and female bodily response during and after sexual activity. Even such sacred notions as sperm existing with the "goal" of seeking and fertilizing the prized egg are turned on their head. Baker describes at least three types of distinctly different sperm, each with an apparently different mission. The "egg-getters," those who match our usual characterization of the typical sperm, in actuality comprise only 1% or less of the sperm in a man's ejaculate. Other sperm appear to function as "blockers" of women's cervical crypts or "egg-killers"
who attack foreign sperm. Baker also discusses the discovery of specialized sperm that may kill a man's own egg-getters under certain prescribed circumstances. Lest you think that all of this talk of biology results in a "dry" reading experience, realize that Sperm Wars was written for public consumption, and as such does not contain one formal reference, no mention of other researchers, and no subject index. Instead, the author has taken his insights into the biology of sexual behavior, mixed in a fair amount of speculation, and presents the results through 37 narrative "scenes."
Baker notes that he did not intend for the scenes through which various phenomena are characterized to be pornographic or inherently arousing, yet many of them are very explicit and detailed depictions of both typical and atypical sexual behavior. Immediately following each scene, Baker describes what occurred from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist. That is, from an evolutionary and biological view, why did each actor in the scene behave the way he or she did? Why did each actor's body respond the way it did? And what are the reproductive and interpersonal implications of each? Although the underpinnings of the book include evolutionary theory and natural selection, the reader
is not sedated with a lengthy treatise of either.
The insights, observations, and speculations are too numerous to catalogue here, but I will present a couple of them, especially those having to do with sexual phenomena that have been problematic for previous authors to explain from a functional or an evolutionary perspective. The nature of the "sperm wars" around which the book is based have to do with both competition among two or more men's sperm within the same woman, as well as a sort of evolutionary "war" that may occur between the male and female within a given sexual dyad. That is, in the latter type of sperm war, a woman's body may be "trying" to avoid conception from a particular insemination, whereas a man's body might be "trying" to achieve fertilization of her egg (in an evolutionary sense of reproductive fitness). Both types of "wars" are highlighted throughout the book, particularly as various sexual behaviors and experiences fit with the goals and outcomes of each type of battle.
For example, why do so many humans find oral sex arousing and a desirable activity? Of course, the simple answer is "it feels good." But beyond the sheer physical stimulation it provides, why is it arousing?
Why is oral sex more desirable to many than manual manipulation of the genitals? Baker posits that, in an ultimate sense, providing oral sex offers a unique opportunity to gather (perhaps subconsciously) information about a partner's reproductive health and (possible) recent infidelity. The first type of sperm war mentioned previously had to do with sperm competition among men. Baker admits this sperm competition is relatively rare (he estimates that approximately 20% of conceptions involve such sperm competition), yet the reproductive implications are strong enough to have shaped dramatically men's and women's sexuality, both biological and psychological. Offering a mate the opportunity to perform oral sex at least communicates recent fidelity (or at least nothing to hide in that regard). That is, performing oral sex offers the possibility to detect, through visual, olfactory, and gustatory cues, secretions left behind by a recent interloper (especially relevant data during our evolutionary history in which douches and baths were nonexistent or infrequent). These hypotheses fit well with another recent book that included consideration of the ultimate functions of oral sex (Kohl & Francoeur, 1995). Baker explains how oral sex, both giving and receiving, evolved to become more or less inherently pleasurable because of the
ultimate functions it may have served.

Other writers have attempted to explain the function and evolutionary value of female orgasm, and typically concluded that female orgasm is antypically concluded that female orgasm is an
unintended evolutionary byproduct or evolved to strengthen pairbonds, (e.g., Fisher, 1992; Symons, 1979). Armed with more recent and relevant data, Baker describes how women's orgasms, although certainly not required for fertilization, can profoundly affect likelihood of conception. After describing at length the vaginal and cervical environments, Baker introduces the concept of a "cervical filter," referring to the type and amount of cervical mucus, cellular debris, ejected sperm, and other organic material. The strength of a woman's cervical filter fluctuates depending on various conditions, one of which is length of time since last orgasm. Orgasm (from masturbation, for example) results in a stronger cervical filter if performed 24 hours after intercourse than orgasm experienced 48 hours after intercourse. The strength of the cervical filter affects the relative ease with which sperm can reach the fallopian tubes, where fertilization typically takes place.
The story does not stop there. Through experiments conducted in his lab, Baker found that timing of female orgasm during or around the occurrence of vaginal intercourse further affects the likelihood of fertilization. During female orgasm the woman's cervix dips and the opening to the cervix gapes open,
much like an elephant's trunk while taking in water. If a seminal pool is present in the vagina at that point, a significant number of sperm will be helped along by this "up-suck" phenomenon. So, to maximize conception, a woman should experience an orgasm immediately after a man ejaculates. If the woman experiences orgasm when a seminal pool is not present, vaginal secretions are likely to be "sucked up," thereby increasing the acidity of the cervical environment. Accordingly, female orgasm prior to male ejaculation strengthens the cervical filter and reduces the likelihood of fertilization. In this context, Baker also discusses the role of nocturnal orgasms in women's sexuality.
I was fascinated by this and other material in Sperm Wars, yet as I try to convey some of it here I am struck by how sterile the bare information seems. One strength of the book is Baker's ability to weave didactic coverage of material with his narrative scenes in which realistic sexual scenarios are used to provide a context for what the biological phenomena "look like," or actually how they play out, in real life. Accordingly, I encourage the reader of this review not to judge the book by my meager description.
Despite the praise I lavish on Baker and Sperm Wars,
the book is not without its flaws and shortcomings. On a very minor note, there are several places where the reader encounters a British use of a word or phrase that an American is not likely to understand fully. On a conceptual level, those involved in the social sciences may feel as though something is missing. Baker's background is biology, so it should not be surprising that the book is weaker in providing psychological links between biological function and overt behavior. As just one example, Baker describes how men adjust the number of sperm in their ejaculate according to the proportion of time since last intercourse during which the man's partner was out of his sight (and hence potentially available for rival insemination). What is missing is an attempted answer to the fascinating questions of what psychological mechanisms are involved in performing such a "calculation" and what other relationship characteristics might affect the adjustment of sperm in ejaculate.

Ultimately, in discussing most phenomena, Baker relies on a sort of anthropomorphic presentation of men's and women's bodies. That is, he translates anmen's and women's bodies. That is, he translates an
ultimate reproductive advantage associated with certain sexual behaviors into a kind of hidden agenda on the part of men's and women's bodies. At times, human bodies are presented as sort of having minds of their own, which frequently result in a "conflict between the conscious brain and the subconscious body" (p. 109). Baker starts with the assumption that "whenever the body is intent upon a particular course of action, it generates an urge to perform that action" (pp. 166-167) and concludes that
most of the strategies shown by men and women in relation to ejaculation and orgasm are subconscious--orchestrated by the body via sequences of mood, libido, and sensitivity to stimulation. Indeed, most of the behavior described
in this book is similarly subconscious, the product of genetic
programming rather than cerebral rationalization. (p. 199)
Social scientists more concerned with conscious processes and social forces may be somewhat uncomfortable with these basic assumptions upon which Sperm Wars is based. In a general sense, there is a problem of teleology as Baker frequently seems to jump from the existence of a sexual behavior to its ultimate reproductive function (consequence) to an inherent motivation on the part of the individual engaging in the behavior.
Also, even though Baker explained that it was not his intention nor belief that Sperm Wars contains sexist views (p. xxiv), some very controversial ideas are sure to offend some and anger others. One primary example involves Baker's position on sexual aggression within relationships, from "rough-and- tumble sex play" to forced intercourse. Baker makes few distinctions between these two types of aggression and attributes both to female testing of male partners' strength and ability to overcome her resistance. "To test this [ability], she has to resist first verbally, then physically. The stronger and more realistic her resistance, the better the test" (p. 223). Baker notes that "[i]n species such as humans that
form long-term relationships, rough-and-tumble sexual behavior is most important during early stages of courtship. Once a woman has tested a man's ability to force himself on her, she need not do it often thereafter" (pp. 223-224). I do not even have to elaborate on the ideological problem many readers would have with this perspective. Empirically, data are needed to support such an interpretation of the reproductive "function" of sexual aggression (playful or otherwise) within couples.
Despite a lack of psychological underpinning and some politically incorrect views, Sperm Wars truly is a revolutionary look at human sexual behavior. Rather than attempting to explain only certain aspects of sexual behavior, or isolated sexual phenomena, Baker bites off large pieces in his attempt to explain human sexuality. From routine sexual functioning, to extradyadic sex, to fantasies and erotica, to masturbation and wet dreams, Baker weaves empirical findings, evolutionary theory, speculation, and narrative illustration into a very readable account. The academic who reads Sperm Wars will not likely swallow everything whole, but I can guarantee that the experience will forever alter how the reader views human sexual behavior.

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP welcomes you to the Liberal Christian Lifestyle

Welcome Bedbugs!

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP presents, The Official Preppy Reboot. Tut tut.

SOCIETY

The Official Preppy Reboot

Thirty years ago, The Official Preppy Handbook cracked the Wasp code-and went on to become a huge best-seller. In an excerpt from the update, True Prep, the author, along with designer Chip Kidd, covers the inevitable changes that are piercing blissful bubbles from Deer Isle to Jackson Hole.

By Lisa Birnbach•

Illustration by Jean-Philippe DelHomme

WEB EXCLUSIVE August 9, 2010

Excerpted from True Prep, by Lisa Birnbach with Chip Kidd, to be published this month by Knopf; © 2010 by Island of Mommy Inc. and Charles Kidd.

Wake up, Muffy, we're back.

O.K., now where were we?

Oh yes. It was 1980, and Ronald Reagan was heading to his improbable victory over Jimmy Carter. We wondered whether joining a club before your 30th birthday made you into a young fuddy-duddy, we considered the importance of owning a dress watch—one thing led to another, and before the year was over, our project became … The Official Preppy Handbook. Yes. That was us. We enjoyed every minute that we still remember, but we seemed to have misplaced a number of brain cells in the process.

Though we maintained that this world has changed little since 1635, when the Boston Latin School was founded, you knew we were exaggerating slightly. And as our world spins faster and faster and we use up more natural resources, and scientists keep finding more sugar substitutes, we have to think about how life in the 21st century affects our safe and lovely bubble.

And as we have gotten a bit older and a teensy bit wiser, the world has become much smaller. We are all interconnected, intermarried, inter-everything'd. The great-looking couple in the matching tweed blazers and wide-wale orange corduroy trousers are speaking … Italian. On Melrose Avenue! Whereas once upon a time it was unlikely Europeans would be attracted to our aesthetic, now they've adapted it and made it their own. (They're the women with no hips, in case you were wondering.)Muffy van Winkle, you've napped long enough. It's been 30 years! It doesn't seem possible, does it? Despite changes and crises, the maid quitting, running out of vodka, your NetJets account being yanked, and the Internet, it's still nice to be prep.

Let's begin at the beginning of the year. Here are our resolutions. You'll catch on.

No drinking at lunch.

Call Grandmother once a week.

Get Belgian shoes re-soled (thinnest Cat's Paw rubber).

Sign up for tennis team at the club.

Actually go to team practices.

Have gravy boat re-engraved.

Find Animal House and return to Netflix.

Send in donation for class gift this year.

And send in write-up for class notes.

Finally use Scully & Scully credit—maybe Pierpont's next wedding?

Drive mother to cemetery at least once this year.

Order new stationery before supply runs out. (Find die!)

Luggage tags!

Download phone numbers into the thingy.

New Facebook picture?

Work on goals.

Work on topspin.

Get Katharine to do community service somehow.

Clean gutters or get someone to do them.

Repair hinge on broken shutter. Or else!

Finally hire portrait artist for Whimsy. (She's 84 in dog years; not much time left.)

Who We Are Now

Formerly Wasp. Failing that, white and heterosexual. One day we became curious or bored and wanted to branch out, and before you knew it, we were all mixed up.

Well, that's the way we like it, even if Grandmother did disapprove and didn't go to the wedding ceremony. (Did she ever stop talking about the “barefoot and pregnant bride”? Ever?) And now one of our nieces, MacKenzie, is a researcher at the C.D.C. in Atlanta and is engaged to marry the loveliest man … Rajeem, a pediatrician who went to Duke. And Kelly is at Smith, and you know what that means. And our son Cal is married to Rachel, and her father the cantor married them in a lovely ceremony. Katie, our daughter, is a decorative artist living in Philadelphia with Otis, who is a professor of African-American studies at Swarthmore. And then there's Bailey, our handsome little nephew. Somehow, all he wants to do is ski, meet girls, and drink beer.

Well, there's one out of five.

Fashion Rules

We know that many of you understand the principles of preppy style. But just to be sure, let's review them again.

We wear sportswear. This makes it easier to go from sporting events to social events (not that there is much difference) without changing.

We generally underdress. We prefer it to overdressing.

Your underwear must not show. Wear a nude-colored strapless bra. Pull up your pants. Wear a belt. Do something. Use a tie!

We do not display our wit through T-shirt slogans.

Every single one of us—no matter the age or gender or sexual preference—owns a blue blazer.

We take care of our clothes, but we're not obsessive. A tiny hole in a sweater, a teensy stain on the knee of our trousers, doesn't throw us. (We are the people who brought you duct-taped Blucher moccasins.)

We do, however, wear a lot of white in the summer, and it must be spotless.

Don't knock seersucker till you've tried it. (Between Memorial Day and Labor Day, unless you live in Palm Beach or Southern California, or the southern Mediterranean, please.)

Bags and shoes need not match.

Jewelry should not match, though metals should.

On the other hand, your watch doesn't have to be the same metal as your jewelry.

And you can wear gold with a platinum wedding band and/or engagement ring.

Men's jewelry should be restricted to a handsome watch, a wedding band if he is American and married, and nothing else. If he has a family-crest ring, it may be worn as well. For black-tie, of course, shirt studs and matching cuff links are de rigueur.

Nose rings are never preppy.

Neither (shudder) are belly-button piercings.

Nor are (two shudders) tongue studs.

And that goes for ankle bracelets.

Tattoos: Men who have been in a war have them, and that's one thing. (Gang wars don't count.) Anyone else looks like she is trying hard to be cool. Since the body ages, if youmust tattoo, find a spot that won't stretch too much. One day you will want to wear a halter-necked backless gown. Will you want everyone at the party to know you once loved John Krasinski?

Sneakers (a.k.a. tennis shoes, running shoes, trainers) are not worn with skirts.

Men may wear sneakers with linen or cotton trousers to casual summer parties.

Women over the age of 15 may wear a simple black dress. Women over the age of 21 must have several in rotation.

High-heel rule: You must be able to run in them—on cobblestones, on a dock, in case of a spontaneous foot race.

Clothes can cost any amount, but they must fit. Many a preppy has an item from a vintage shop or a lost-and-found bin at the club that was tailored and looks incredibly chic.

Do not fret if cashmere is too pricey. Preppies love cotton and merino-wool sweaters.

We do not wear our cell phones or BlackBerrys suspended from our belts. (That includes you, President Obama.)

Real suspenders are attached with buttons. We do not wear the clip versions.

Learn how to tie your bow tie. Do not invest in clip-ons.

Preppies are considerate about dressing our age. It is for you, not for us.

Men, if you made the mistake of buying Tevas or leather sandals, please give them to Goodwill.

You may, however, wear flip-flops to the beach if your toes are presentable. Be vigilant!

Pareos (sarongs) are for the beach, not for the mall. (Even if it's near the beach.)

Riding boots may be worn by non-riders; cowboy boots may be worn by those who have never been on a horse. However, cowboy hats may not be worn by anyone who isn't technically a cowboy or a cowgirl.

You may wear a Harvard sweatshirt if: you attended Harvard, your spouse attended Harvard, or your children attend Harvard. Otherwise, you are inviting an uncomfortable question.

If your best friend is a designer (clothes, accessories, jewelry), you should wear a piece from his or her collection. If his or her taste and yours don't coincide, buy a piece or two to show your loyal support—but don't wear them.

Every preppy woman has a friend who is a jewelry designer.

No man bags.

Preppies don't perm their hair.

Preppy men do not believe that comb-overs disguise anything.

You can never go wrong with a trench coat.

Sweat suits are for sweating. You can try to get away with wearing sweats to carpool, to pick up the newspaper, or to drive to the dump, but last time you were at the dump, the drop-dead-attractive widower from Maple Lane was there, too.

And finally:

The best fashion statement is no fashion statement.

Logology

Sometime in the 1980s the cart began leading the horse. Don't look at us; preppies were certainly not to blame. Fashion followers mistakenly thought the logo was the point. (This is the place at which we would write “LOL,” except we loathe “LOL.”)

But wearing a logo-laden outfit or accessory points to the wearer's painful insecurity. If you think you are being ironic, think again.

Here's the rule of thumb: The first logo that preppies loved was the Lacoste crocodile. It belonged to the French tennis star René Lacoste, whose nickname was Le Crocodile. It was an authentic, since he himself wore la chemise in 1927, after having been the top tennis player in the world in 1926 and 1927. (He won seven grand-slam singles titles in France, Britain, and the U.S. In 1961 he also invented the first metal tennis racket, which was sold in this country as the Wilson T2000.)

The shirts, made by La Société Chemise Lacoste, became an international sensation in 1933. Initially they had long tails, crocodiles of 2.8 centimeters in width, and embroidered labels with the size in French: Patron, Grand Patron, etc. There was no need (not then nor now) to change the size of the beast.

The Anne Rice defection: It's the tip of the religious iceberg

The Anne Rice defection: It's the tip of the religious iceberg

American Christianity is not well, and there's evidence to indicate that its condition is more critical than most realize — or at least want to admit.

By William Lobdell
August 8, 2010

Novelist Anne Rice's surprise post last week on Facebook — she announced she had quit Christianity "in the name of Christ" because she'd seen too much hypocrisy — brought cheers and smug smiles from critics of institutional faith, and criticism and soul-searching among believers.

But there's something more at play here than one of America's most famous Catholics — Rice re-embraced the faith of her youth in 1998 and published a memoir just two years ago, "Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession" — walking away from the church.

Rice is merely one of millions of Americans who have opted out of organized religion in recent years, making the unaffiliated category of faith the fastest-growing "religion" in America, according to a 2008 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The Pew report found that 1 in 6 American adults were not affiliated with any particular faith. That number jumped to 25% for people ages 18 to 29. Moreover, most mainline Protestant denominations have for years experienced a net loss in members, and about 25% of cradle Catholics have left their childhood faith, the study showed.

And in a 2008 study by Trinity College researchers, 27% of Americans said they do not expect a religious funeral.

American Christianity is not well, and there's evidence to indicate that its condition is more critical than most realize — or at least want to admit.

Pollsters — most notably evangelical George Barna — have reported repeatedly that they can find little measurable difference between the moral behavior of churchgoers and the rest of American society. Barna has found that born-again Christians are more likely to divorce (an act strongly condemned by Jesus) than atheists and agnostics, and are more likely to be racist than other Americans.

And while evangelical adolescents overwhelmingly say they believe in abstaining from premarital sex, they are more likely to be sexually active — and at an earlier age — than peers who are mainline Protestants, Mormons or Jews, according to University of Texas researcher Mark Regnerus.

On the bright side, Barna's surveys show evangelicals (defined by Barna as a subset of born-again Christians, which he sees as a broader group with more flexible beliefs) do pledge far more money to charity, though 76% of them fail to give 10% of their income to the church as prescribed by their faith. Various studies show American Christians as a whole give away a miserly 3% or so of their income to the church or charity.

"Every day, the church is becoming more like the world it allegedly seeks to change," Barna has said.

Barna isn't the only worried evangelical. Christian activist Ronald J. Sider writes in his book, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience": "By their daily activity, most 'Christians' regularly commit treason. With their mouths they claim that Jesus is their Lord, but with their actions they demonstrate their allegiance to money, sex, and personal self-fulfillment."

How to explain the Grand Canyon-sized gap between principles outlined in the Gospels and the behavior of believers? Christians typically, and rather lamely, respond that shortcomings of the followers of Jesus are simply evidence of man's inherent sinfulness.

But if one adheres to the principle of Occam's razor — that the simplest explanation is the most likely — there is another, more unsettling conclusion: that many people who call themselves Christian don't really believe, deep down, in the tenets of their faith. In other words, their actions reveal their true beliefs.

That might explain why Roman Catholic bishops leave predator priests in ministry to prey on more unsuspecting children. Or why churches on Sunday mornings are said to be the most segregated places in America. It also would explain why most Catholic women use birth control even though the practice is considered a mortal sin.

Culturally, America is still a Christian nation. The majority of us still attend church at least occasionally, celebrate Christmas and Easter, and pepper our conversations with "God bless you" and "I'll be praying for you."

But judging by the behavior of most Christians, they've become secularists. And the sea of hypocrisy between Christian beliefs and actions is driving Americans away from the institutional church in record numbers.

Some, such as Anne Rice, are continuing their spiritual journey on their own, unable to reconcile the Gospel message with religious institutions covered with man's dirty fingerprints. Others have stopped believing in God. Those with awareness who remain Christians are scrambling to find ways, like St. Francis of Assisi, to rebuild God's church.

But remember, St. Francis offered a radical example during a time when the institutional church had grown corrupt and flabby. He was a wealthy young man who took a vow of poverty and devoted himself to the poor. His motto: "Preach the Gospel at all times — and when necessary use words."

A well-informed hunch says American Christians aren't ready for the kind of reformation that will realign their actions with biblical mandates. And in the meantime, the exodus from the church will continue.

William Lobdell, a former Times staff writer, is the author of "Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America — and Found Unexpected Peace."