Link between IQ and concupiscent (lustful) behavior
I recently tuned into Rabbi Daniel Lapin’s podcast episode on why men need to build or join a "Band of Brothers" where men need to be in a group of men who demand more of each other which is a topic I will delve into in future. Amidst the broader conversation about community, accountability, and masculine development, he dropped a fascinating statement: there is a direct link between IQ and concupiscent (lustful) behavior, and exercising restraint in sexuality actually improves intelligence over successive generations.
That is a bold, almost counter-cultural claim to hear today. It immediately caught my attention, and I had to know: is there actual science behind this, or is it just philosophical rhetoric?
I decided to delve deeper into the history, psychology, and biology behind this idea. Here is what I found about the strange, complex relationship between intelligence, impulse, and generational success.
Where the Idea Comes From
The idea that sexual restraint builds better, smarter societies isn’t new. In fact, it was the subject of a massive sociological study in the early 20th century.
In 1934, British anthropologist J.D. Unwin published Sex and Culture. After analyzing 86 different human societies, Unwin concluded that civilizations only achieve high levels of intellectual, architectural, and cultural expansion when they enforce strict sexual constraints, such as absolute monogamy. He argued that when a society restricts basic sexual outlets, humans are forced to "sublimate" that raw biological energy into higher-order productivity and intellectual advancement.
This mirrors the psychoanalytic theories of Sigmund Freud, who also believed that the suppression of base, concupiscent urges was the very engine of civilization. According to these early thinkers, sexual discipline is the forge of human intellect.
Executive Function and Impulse Control
If we move from early 20th-century sociology into modern neuroscience, the link between high IQ and delayed sexuality becomes much clearer—and it has everything to do with how the brain is wired.
Intelligence is heavily tied to the brain's prefrontal cortex, the region responsible for executive function. This area governs our ability to delay gratification, weigh long-term consequences, and exert impulse control. Statistical data consistently shows that adolescents with higher IQs tend to delay sexual intercourse longer than their average-IQ peers.
It isn’t that highly intelligent people lack biological drives; rather, their brains are better equipped to prioritize long-term goals—like education, career stability, and personal development—over immediate, impulsive gratification.
Evolutionary psychology offers another fascinating lens on this. Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa proposed the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, which suggests that general intelligence evolved specifically to help early humans deal with "evolutionary novelties"—situations and challenges that our ancient ancestors rarely faced.
Basic biological imperatives, like immediate reproduction, are evolutionarily familiar. Every ancestor we have successfully followed that instinct. Overriding those base instincts, however, requires higher cognitive effort. Therefore, individuals with higher intelligence are statistically more likely to diverge from basic biological urges. This can manifest as delayed sexuality, lower baseline libido, or choosing to have fewer children in favor of intellectual or professional pursuits.
The Biological Reality: The Ghost of Lamarckian Inheritance
This brings us to the second, more controversial half of the podcast's claim: does restraint actively improve intelligence in successive generations?
Biologically speaking, the idea that exercising psychological restraint mutates your DNA to create a "smarter" baby relies on a debunked biological concept called Lamarckian inheritance. Lamarckism is the false idea that an organism can pass on traits it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring. It assumes that if a blacksmith builds huge muscles during his life, his children will be born more muscular. Or, in this case, if a parent exercises intense sexual discipline, their child is born genetically smarter.
Modern genetics has entirely disproven this. Your DNA does not rewrite its base code based on the behavioral choices you make during your life.
So, was Rabbi Lapin entirely wrong? Not quite. The mechanism just isn't genetic.
Conclusion: The Real Generational Mechanism is Resource Allocation
While sexual restraint doesn't change a parent's genetic code, the lifestyle associated with delayed reproduction has a massive, undeniable impact on the next generation's intelligence.
In biology, this reflects a shift toward a K-selection strategy. When individuals restrain their sexual behavior and delay having children, they typically spend those years acquiring education, building wealth, and establishing a highly stable environment. When they eventually do start a family, they tend to have fewer children, allowing them to invest massive amounts of time, high-quality nutrition, and educational resources into each child.
This intense environmental investment maximizes the child's cognitive development, leading to higher measured IQs in the subsequent generation.
Ultimately, abstaining from concupiscent behavior doesn't magically mutate a person's DNA. Rather, the discipline required to exercise that restraint allows individuals to build stable, resource-rich environments. It is the environment forged by that discipline—not the biology of the discipline itself—that allows the next generation to reach its maximum intellectual potential.
