The Wedding Night A Popular History

by Jane Merrill

Author Jane Merrill Isbn 9780313392108 File size 2MB Year 2011 Pages 256 Language English File format PDF Category Family and Friendship This enlightening narrative takes a look at the wedding night its origins history customs cultural expressions and fictional representations through the ages 15 paintings illustrations sculptures and cartoons that depict aspects of the wedding night throughout history Numerous texts and quotations from primary sources that underscore historical

Publisher :

Author : Jane Merrill

ISBN : 9780313392108

Year : 2011

Language: English

File Size : 2MB

Category : Family and Friendship

The Wedding Night

After enduring many hardships, Psyche accepts the embrace of the god of love
and settles into a passionate, yet stable union. A 17th-century neoclassical
sculpture by Antonio Canova. (Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource,
New York.)

The Wedding Night
A Popular History

Jane Merrill and Chris Filstrup

Copyright 2011 by Jane Merrill and Chris Filstrup
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of
brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Merrill, Jane.
The wedding night : a popular history / Jane Merrill and Chris Filstrup.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-313-39210-8 (hard copy : alk. paper) —
ISBN 978-0-313-39211-5 (ebook) 1. Marriage customs and rites.
I. Filstrup, Chris. II. Title.
ISBN: 978-0-313-39210-8
EISBN: 978-0-313-39211-5










This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook.
Visit for details.
An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC
130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911
Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911
This book is printed on acid-free paper
Manufactured in the United States of America





Chapter 1:

It Takes Two to . . .


Chapter 2:

The Classical Three-Step: Establishing the
Wedding Pattern


Chapter 3:

Virginity to Consummation: The Rite of Passage


Chapter 4:

Proceeding to the Royal Bedroom


Chapter 5:

Merriment and Pranks


Chapter 6:

Tobias Nights


Chapter 7:

Early American Wedding Nights


Chapter 8:

The Spousals of Native Americans


Chapter 9:

Presidential Wedding Nights


Chapter 10: Elopement


Chapter 11: The Honeymoon


Chapter 12: Guide for the Perplexed


Chapter 13: Between the Sheets




Chapter 14: The Bride Wore . . . Lingerie


Chapter 15: The Food of Love


Chapter 16: Arabian and Other Nights


Chapter 17: An Occasion for Mirth


Chapter 18: Do Not Disturb


Appendix: Wedding Nights on the Silver Screen




The debts owed for a book of this kind are far ranging and considerable,
both because of the interdisciplinary nature of the subject and because ours
is the first book to focus on it. Our abundant thanks are due to the many
scholars, experts, librarians, and curators who helped us to swim rather
than sink in the extensive material we encountered. We are especially
grateful to our colleagues at the public library in Litchfield, Connecticut,
and the university libraries at Stony Brook University. For reading over
chapters and for his comments on chapter 6, we thank Rabbi Howard S.
Hoffman. We thank Barbara Lencheck, a superlative copy editor, and
Laurie Filstrup for formatting and proofreading the entire book.
We also toast as if with flutes of bubbly the following individuals and
institutions, listed in alphabetical order: Franco Barbacci, a gentleman of
many parts; Martha Tomhave Blauvelt, social historian; Lynn Brickley, a
historian of New England; Janie Chang, for letting us quote from When
We Lived in Still Waters, a sparkling trove of stories of her Chinese family; Helen Cooper, professor of Medieval and Renaissance English, University of Cambridge; Jean De Jean, professor of French, University of
Pennsylvania; John Endicott for le mot juste; Joanne M. Ferraro, for the
pleasure of reading her study Marriage Wars in Late Renaissance Venice;
Henry F. Graff, scholar of presidents and biographer of Grover Cleveland;
Trebbe Johnson, sui generis authority on the folklore and psychology of
the feminine; Sherry Goodman Luttrell, Director of Education, Berkeley
Art Museum; the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and its highly informed



staff; David Lee Miller, Spenserian and professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of South Carolina; Carolyn Niethammer,
esteemed interpreter and scholar of Native American societies; Barbara
Penner, cultural history nonpareil and lecturer in architectural history at
the University College, London.
The finest pieces of virtual wedding cake are also due to the outstanding
reference team of the Westport Public Library in Westport, Connecticut.
Finally, several rosettes to our very special publisher, and especially to
our very cool editor, Michael Wilt, for entrusting us with this unusual

Le sort d’un mariage dépend de la première nuit.
(The fate of a marriage depends on the first night.)
—Honoré de Balzac
A kaleidoscopic array of cultural expressions constitutes the history of
intimacy. In this book we summarize a large literature in order to bring
attention to an elusive yet identifiable moment—the couple’s traditional
first night. What follows the ritual party? What leads to the honeymoon?
The wedding night is not the icing on the cake but the jam that holds together the layers of the wedding experience.
Each thing that the bride or groom is told or thinks of doing or that
wedding guests or members of the community think of doing with regard to the wedding night has more tradition than anyone may imagine
at first blink. For instance, men have been carrying their brides over the
threshold at least since ancient Greece. Finnish philosopher and sociologist Edward Westermarck’s massive study of marriage customs, The History
of Human Marriage,1 finds the practice all over the world. The sill on the
ground, which separates the outside from the inside of a house and over
which people pass daily without a thought, on the wedding night takes
on a magical quality. One of Westermarck’s examples comes from Wales,
where “it was very unlucky for a bride to place her feet on or near the
threshold,” and “trouble was in store for the maiden who preferred walking into the house.”2 From this example, we sense evil spirits lurking at



the bride’s feet. However, as we see in chapter 2, the larger explanation is
that in the classical world the threshold defined the space that the household gods and goddesses protected; in the Western world, the wedding
night life unconsciously reenacts this ancient belief in household deities.
Wedding customs come and go, but the practice of carrying the bride
over the threshold is among those that endure. That may be because the
more flexible the custom, the more it “customizes” for the individual couple. The threshold custom can hold a variety of meanings for newlyweds.
Most men still lift the bride over the threshold, but they may do it with
a flourish, romantically or ironically as a shared nod to tradition. The
“how” also has variants. Does the groom use the “underhand carry” or the
“fireman’s carry”? The underhand carry is instinctive and the one most
men execute unless they know the other method from lifesaving classes or
summer camp. The fireman’s carry is a more dramatic way to get the bride
across the threshold. Either way, the bride may utter an “Oooo!” Traditions are like that: although the bride knows generally it’s coming, she’s
emotionally as well as literally swept off her feet.
Just as carrying the bride over the threshold holds multiple shades of
meaning, so does the entire wedding night—this is what makes it fascinating, yet elusive. In the past, it was often the most terrifying night of a
young woman’s life, shrouded in ignorance, frequently anticipated as pain
rather than pleasure, and darkened by the fear of dying during childbirth.
For the young man, the prospect was often arid, a test of male prowess
without an expectation of an emotional union or an equal life partner.
The imprint of the past gives today’s wedding night an importance but
does not define it. Today the night extends the festive behavior of the
day or evening; because unseen and largely unplanned, it stands in counterpoint to the wedding itself. Whereas the wedding culminates a great
deal of preparation and, above all, means to the couple having people
important to them gather in one room, the wedding night signifies to
the newlyweds sheer privacy. And they want everything about their wedding, including the first night (even if “it’s no big deal”), to have a special weight that will carry their marriage to a successful future. The bride
wears something old and something blue, the groom has a best man present the wedding band to him because tradition matters to each of them.
She wants to know what other couples are doing and have done in past
to confirm their bond. Most young people long to commit to each other
for a lifetime marriage. Most couples vow to keep faith through thick and
thin with the wedding partner, and one way to do this is to make the rituals count.
Our weddings are often elaborate affairs, after which the bride and
groom are as likely to fall asleep as to fall into each other’s passionate em-



brace. Instead of a sprint, the average wedding is a marathon that starts
on the day of the engagement and continues until the couple or their parents have spent to the limit, dozens or hundreds of wedding guests have
departed the ballroom, and the couple is alone and wed at last. But one
thing has not changed: the wedding night has a mystique, sometimes sacred, sometimes cultural, sometimes familial, as the moment at which the
intimate part of matrimony starts.
This book fills a surprising gap in wedding literature. There are articles
and books on the traditions of the day—but what of the night, the unorchestrated but much anticipated segue to married life? The wedding
nights of other people, whether in the historical past, in other cultures,
or in our own, lie off the standard wedding map. The chapters that follow
answer questions such as: what is the origin of giving away the bride? Why
did Renaissance English kings give away their beds the day after the wedding? What were 18th-century courtiers doing in the royal bedroom after
the wedding? What’s an epithalamium? Did Queen Victoria approach her
wedding night as a “Victorian”? Where have the newlyweds eaten a mixture of chocolate and champagne? What happened on your grandmother’s
wedding night? Why did Uncle Luther short-sheet the bridal bed? What
did Milton Berle have to say about wedding nights?
What this book does not do is tell the bride and groom how to have
sex. The odds are excellent that they’ve already learned about lovemaking with each other. Instead, we have taken a look at the history of marriage manuals to show how the social norms set expectations (e.g., the
advent of the birth control pill made staying a virgin less consequential). The Wedding Night concentrates on the Western world, starting with
the Greeks, using the available facts as a foundation from which to explore the universal human drive to find a partner and secure an intimate
Viewing the chapters across an intellectual spectrum, at the academic end the book deals with the first night as a guarantee of paternity in the event the wife becomes pregnant. The wedding night looms
large in the evolutionary development of the two-parent family unit.
As a marker event, it predates the wedding rite of passage. Until birth
control was widely practiced, sex was fraught with the possibility of
conception and the responsibilities of rearing children. It is no exaggeration to say that the first marital sexual intercourse brings into play the
entirety of humanity’s struggle for survival and eventual dominance.
Related to paternity and also at the serious end of the spectrum, we
bring to the bedside table descriptions of royal wedding nights in which
dynasties vested their survival and, by contrast, the practical perspectives
of early American settlers and Native Americans. We also draw back the



curtains to show how different classes and communities verified the bride’s
virginity and promoted conception and how the public dimensions of the
wedding spilled into the bedroom. Also at this end of the spectrum is the
story of Tobias, a diaspora Jew whom the angel Raphael aids in his quest
for a bride and in his conquest of a demon who has killed her previous
husbands on their wedding nights.
In the middle of the intellectual spectrum, we describe and reflect on
wedding-night advice proffered to women by a wide variety of marriage
manuals. The sexiest chapter of the book, this is not a how-to but a whatdid-they-expect.
On the lighter end of the spectrum, you will find descriptions of clothing, both for the bed and for the bride, the intimate meal and special
foods, pranks played on the newlyweds, and imaginary wedding nights.
In The Thousand and One Nights, each night Scheherazade ends a story
just short of a climax so that the Persian king will spare her until the next
night. She keeps him in a state of unresolved desire. The place of literature, including The Arabian Nights, poetry, novels, and cinema, primes our
excitement by drawing us into imaginary worlds.
Our final chapter, “Do Not Disturb,” records contemporary as-told-to
accounts of unusual and ordinary, ludicrous and disappointing, and truly
romantic wedding nights. Today, only a fraction of men and women are
virgins at their weddings, but the wedding night is no less vibrant with
expectations and possibility.
The wedding night is about commitment and exclusivity over the long
run. In traditional Freudian terms, on the wedding night, the bride and
groom bring to bed their parents. That is, they bring to the union a rich,
unruly subconscious where their deepest values jockey for dominance.
Within the act of sexual consummation lie humans’ most rooted drives,
and around the act hover social standards that sustain or inhibit these
drives. In recognition of the wedding night as a rite of passage, we close
the book with our back-to-the-present chapter, which looks at the subjective dimension, where personal experience mirrors a larger pattern or
archetype and where couples recall what was special about their own wedding nights.

1. Edward Westermarck, The History of Human Marriage, 3 vols. (1891;
New York: Allerton, 1922).
2. Ibid., vol. 2, 536–37.


It Takes Two to . . .
Clearly, the naked ape is the sexiest primate alive.
—Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape1
Humans are the naked apes of Morris’s book. We have less hair, and our
sex lives differ radically from those of most other animals, even our closest
evolutionary ancestors. Chimps have sex more often, in fact many times a
day, but chimp copulation lasts only a few seconds and appears to stimulate little pleasure in the female.2 It is purely reproductive. Gorillas may
go without sex for several years, and, even though the males come in at
300 to 400 pounds, their sex organs are smaller than humans’.3 Bonobos
and gibbons have sex face to face, but humans are the only primates to
transform a reproductive act into a highly pleasurable staple of adult life.
Though chimpanzees and humans have in common 96 percent of their
DNA, the sex lives of the two species are very different. How did this
For some, the answer comes from the Bible: this is how God made humans, different from chimps and gorillas. Until Charles Darwin published
The Origin of the Species, in 1859, this was the standard answer. Rooted
in many centuries of reading the first chapter of Genesis and in Christian
theology, which posited an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator, most people held that God made each species with its own, immutable behaviors.
Humans and chimps differed in the past, differ in the present, and will
differ in the future. In this view, accepted by some of today’s creationists,



the multitude of the world’s species have been here from the beginning,
and differences among species are hardwired and permanent. In addition
to a long tradition, belief in the God-given differences among species has
an appealing simplicity. The natural world is the way it is because God
makes it so. While this belief is comfortable, it is hard to square with science. Since this belief system describes the world, it is legitimate to test
it against scientific observation: what evidence does science bring to bear
on the origins of the human species?
On his famous voyage, Darwin found continuity among species of
finches. In the Galapagos Islands, looking at the various kinds of finches,
he observed and deduced that one species had evolved from another, that
a change in location or climate can change members of one species into
something qualitatively different. When seen in this light, the fossil record available to Darwin indicated that species came and went. Dinosaurs,
which had roamed the world millions of years ago, disappeared millions
of years ago. The fossil record showed that many species were extinct and
could be dated to particular geologic periods. If Darwin and his successors
had left the matter of species change to nonhuman animals, it would have
stirred little controversy. Traditionalists could have argued that animals
are one realm and humans another. But Darwin and the large majority of
scientists who study human origins include humans in the large process
of evolution, of species emerging from other species over long periods of
time. In this perspective, it is useful and interesting to compare specific
features of various species.
According to this view, humans have a long prehuman history. We
are a recent species of hominids that split off from a common ancestor
of chimpanzees about 7 million years ago.4 About 3.5 million years ago,
even while hominid brains were small, about the size of a chimp’s, hominids learned to walk and run on two legs. This upright position afforded
our prehistoric African ancestors the ability to work with their hands.
They began to make tools out of materials such as stone to remove flesh
from animal bones and to crush the bones to extract marrow.5 Our ancestors also learned to hunt in groups in order to survive in an environment
that included both large cats, with claws and teeth for killing and eating
meat, and large grass- and leaf-eating animals, such as elephants and buffalo, which dominated the plains and forests.6 Until very recently, about
10,000 years ago, when humans began to domesticate crops such as wheat
and animals such as goats, our ancestors were hunter-gatherers in direct
competition with other animal species. Along the way, hominid brains
grew and grew.
What does this have to do with wedding nights? As human brains grew
larger and larger, plenty. Let’s look at two famous women named Lucy.



The discovery, in 1974, in northern Ethiopia, of the hominid Lucy
opened modern eyes to an amazingly long history of human evolution.7
Lucy—let’s call her Lucy A after her species, Australopithecus afarensis,
meaning “southern ape of Afar” (Afar being the region in Ethiopia where
she was discovered)—lived 3.2 million years ago. That’s about 100,000
generations. Like us, Lucy A had a pelvis and knees that allowed her to
walk on two feet. This is what made her famous, because paleoanthropologists—khakied men and women who dig up the remains of early humans and their smaller-brained ancestors—at the time surmised that the
earliest bipedals (animals that walk on two feet) had lived only 2.5 million years ago. Lucy was a million years older, and we moderns have an
insatiable interest in our ancestors—the older, the better. It helped Lucy’s
fame that the paleoanthropologists named her after the Beatles’ song Lucy
in the Sky with Diamonds.8
Unlike us, Lucy A had the torso and brain of a chimpanzee. She stood
only three and a half feet tall, and she had long, curved fingers that enabled her to swing through the trees. She was both a tree-swinger and a
ground-walker. But she probably lacked a grasping big toe, meaning not
only that she moved through the trees with just her arms but also, and
more important, that her babies could hang on with only their arms. This
probably indicates that she carried her young while standing upright. She
was a walking, not a swinging, mom. She was transiting from trees to
ground, arms to legs, and ape to human.
Lucille Ball—let’s call her Lucy B—was a star comedienne of the 1950s.
Desi Arnaz was a star band leader. Their courtship, in the late 1930s, was
tumultuous, with each accusing the other of pursuing other love interests.
But Desi, age 23, was determined, and, in November 1940, while his band
was performing at the Roxy in New York City, the dashing Latino whisked
Lucy B, age 29, off to Connecticut to be married by a justice of the peace.
On their wedding night, the younger but macho Desi woke up Lucy B to
ask her for a glass of water. Lucy later recalled wondering, “Why the hell
he didn’t get it himself.”9 Desi and Lucy’s program I Love Lucy ran from
1951 to 1957 and brought into American living rooms their domestic
squabbles and Desi’s coping with Lucy’s zany ways.
In their hit 1953 movie, The Long, Long Trailer, the famous couple
spend a wedding night in a 40-foot trailer. The movie begins with Tacy
(Lucy) persuading her fiancé Nicky (Desi), a traveling engineer, that they
can live more economically in a trailer than in a series of hotels. They
go shopping at a big house-trailer show, where they find that the economical trailer that figured in Tacy’s money-saving budget is too cramped.
Tacy persuades Nicky that they should make a down payment on a 40footer. After the wedding, the pair jump into their convertible and fitfully



pull the trailer toward their honeymoon destination, a trailer park. Nicky
attempts to carry Tacy over the trailer door threshold when close-by
neighbors—that is, almost everyone in the trailer park—ask why he is
doing this. She turned her ankle, Nicky fibs, so a crowd of helpers “bob
up,” and, before Nicky can say “Let’s snuggle,” the “trailerites” transform
the wedding-night trailer into a party. The camaraderie is overwhelming.
One guest remarks that he lived in a house for 15 years without knowing
his neighbors, but in the trailer park “you get to know everyone right off.”
As the guests depart, a woman informs Nicky that she gave the bride a
sleeping pill. The wedding night is undone!
The next morning, Nicky surprises Tacy with breakfast in bed, and they
agree that in the trailer park they lack the privacy appropriate to a honeymoon. So they take to the open road and head for the woods, ideal for
a romantic night alone. But it rains, and the trailer becomes mired in the
mud, at a tilt. Tacy cannot cook a meal on a slanted stove, so they settle
on a meal of wine and cheese. In this romantic moment, Tacy tells Nicky
that she fell in love with him when she saw him at a freeway entrance
with a button missing from his shirt and decided she would take care of
him for the rest of his life.
Nicky, exhausted from trying to right the leaning trailer, falls asleep before he can hear Tacy tell him how romantic she finds the rain on the roof.
Since the Code was still operative, Tacy completes the movie’s wedding
night trying to sleep on a tilted twin bed.
Between the two Lucys lies the extraordinary evolutionary history of
the human species. Lucy A certainly had a mate, but not a husband or
lover. Lucy B not only had a husband; she brought him into millions of
other people’s homes. I Love Lucy rode a wave of broadcast technology and
a long tradition of popular drama. Lucy B had tools and culture utterly unavailable to and unachievable by Lucy A. This rest of this chapter takes
a look at five big changes that separate the two Lucys across the 100,000
generations that divide them: stay-at-home fatherhood, social cooperation, female ovulation, private sex, and the missionary position.10

In Male and Female, the pioneering feminist anthropologist Margaret
Mead argues that a key characteristic that distinguishes humans from our
chimpanzee ancestors is the role of the male in caring for females and
children.11 The female chimp bears the male’s young but has little value
to him beyond her sexual role. Like all species, humans must reproduce.
Like most males, human males are blessed with a strong sex drive. In most
animal species, males tend to conceive as many offspring as possible. We



see this in fish, birds, and mammals. But conception and survival of the
young are different matters. Females who bear the offspring are less interested in numbers and more interested in making sure each offspring survives. It takes little time or effort for a male to impregnate a female, but,
in animals that conceive internally, the female makes a heavy investment
in gestation and in the subsequent rearing of the offspring.
Among most primates (monkeys, apes, lemurs), the male copulates and
goes his way. He has little or nothing to do with raising the young beyond
providing protection. But human males and females learned that for their
offspring to survive, they needed two parents to gather food, build and
maintain shelter, and protect them. Of course, males have a stronger tendency to stray than females, but the norm of one sexual partner was very
strong and generally practiced. Human reproduction is not a series of onenight stands.
As humans developed large brains, children required a long period of
training. Unlike chimps, which start gathering food as soon as they are
weaned, young humans endure years of dependency before they can fare
for themselves. This meant that, millions of years ago, raising the young
became a two-person job, a job for daddies as well as mommies. Anthropologists theorize that a basic division of labor between hunting and
caring for the hearth developed so that the father and mother could contribute different skills to the survival of their young. Females, who carried
the fetus and nursed the baby, could not hunt as effectively as the males.
They could mash nuts and cook meats while tending to the child, but on
the range they were decidedly inferior hunters. They were also somewhat
smaller than their male partners. Until the postindustrial age, this division of labor was almost universal, and it still is very common.

As humans developed the intelligence and tools to hunt animals as well as
gather plants, they gathered together to live in groups. But, unlike chimps
and most apes (and lions), they sustained two-parent units within the
group. Among chimps, paternity is unknown because the female copulates with many males. This is her strategy for protecting her offspring:
the males cannot be certain that the babies are not carrying his genes.
The combination of two-parent caregiving and communal living required
strict rules about paternity. Rather than expending their energies fighting
over access to the females, humans figured out rules to minimize this kind
of conflict—imperfectly, of course, but sufficiently to set the ground work
for sexual loyalty as a norm. From the cradle of paired male and female
adults in a society of other adult males and females came the institution



of marriage, of a primary bond that excluded sex with other adults. Again,
cheating was and is common, but the genesis of marriage reaches way
back to the unusual combination of pairing and communal living (we
say “unusual” because some shore birds stay paired while living in large

Unlike other primates, human females do not restrict sexual intercourse
to their periods of ovulation. Many female monkeys and apes advertise
their fertility. The female baboon’s genitals turn bright red. When ovulating, female chimps present themselves to many males. But human females do not restrict their sexual availability to a few days a month. Their
ovulation is hidden to males and, to a considerable degree, to themselves.
Of course, a modern woman can count backward from her menstruation
to more or less pinpoint her ovulation, but, through the long history of
humans, sex and ovulation were unlinked. Even newlyweds who have a
vigorous sex life without contraceptives have only a 28 percent chance of
conception in each menstrual cycle. This means that humans developed
sex as a regular activity, a form of affection, and a bond that separated
each couple from other couples.

Humans normally do not copulate in public. It is offensive to our moral
code and deserves the retort that the copulating couple are behaving like
“animals.” Actually, “chimps” would be more germane, for they are close
evolutionary cousins who engage in quickies wherever. Orgies notwithstanding, humans have a strong proclivity for engaging in sexual intercourse out of the view of others. Doing it so that others can see or watching
others in sexual embrace is prurient. Although humans can copulate at
any time of the day, pair bonding moved the activity to night, to the straw
or the bed. Sexual intercourse became a private act, acknowledged by the
larger community but occurring in the dark, in private space. Of course,
male and female responses to copulation differ, but the fullness of daily
tasks and the steady responsibility of raising children, the extended nature
of sexual arousal, and postcoital release all combined to move sex into the
night and into the relative privacy of where the couple slept. In terms of
social dynamics, moving sex out of the public view reduced male aggression against other males. By limiting sexual intercourse to one or a few
known women, males could channel their natural sexual aggression into
hunting with the guys and feeding the group.



Yes, it’s old fashioned, but, yes, it’s efficacious. As Lucy A and her descendants found their two feet and left the trees forever, sexual intercourse repositioned to the front. With a few exceptions, monkeys and
apes do it “doggy style.” Face to face, chest to chest, and pelvis to pelvis—
that’s how we humans usually like it. Moreover, humans usually embrace
(from the French “to hold with both arms”) when they copulate. Among
chimps, the act is quick, and the female chimp experiences nothing like
the human female orgasm. After intercourse, she matter-of-factly moves
on to other business. No romantic glow.
In the long evolution of hominids, erogenous zones moved front and
center. Females developed hypersensitive clitorises, and the male took
longer to ejaculate so that the female associated copulation with intense
pleasure. In simian sex, the heads are far apart and facing away from each
other. Hence, kissing is unimportant. Chimps kiss, but the most sensitive area of their lips is inside the mouth—good for tasting food, but not
related to sexual sensation. Human lips have the vermillion, which is
loaded with nerves. A kiss on someone else’s lips can have all the zing of
sexual intercourse.
Once the female hominid was walking upright, her vagina shifted to
the front to accommodate frontal intercourse. To increase the chances
of conception, the female lay on her back, giving the sperm a horizontal
swim to the uterus. The female orgasm leaves the female at rest on her
back, so sexual intercourse has a postcoital as well as a precoital phase.
The embrace continues after climax.
Returning to the naked ape, as our ancestors evolved, they lost most of
their body hair. Anthropologists surmise that hominids lost their hirsute
covering as they developed into hunters on the savannah. What remains
is pubic hair, full of pheromones, in the crotch and armpits. As hominids
lost their hair, they developed sweat glands as a cooling system. These
glands are also full of sexually powerful scents.

We are now closing in on the wedding night. By the time homo sapiens,
our species of hominid, emerged in Africa about 150,000 years ago, we
had grown large brains. Making tools and hunting in groups seem to be
the main factors in making human brains much larger than the brains
of apes. The combination of large-brained offspring who required many
years of care before they could survive on their own and the increasingly
complex organization required to hunt animals pushed humans into a sexual behavior radically different from that of most animals and especially

© 2018-2019 All rights reserved