Originally Posted by MeeraReed
Nope, that's not what Sex at Dawn is about.
Its main argument is that human biology strongly suggests that humans as a species are evolutionarily non-monogamous. Meaning that BOTH men and women probably had multiple sexual partners during the early phases of human prehistory (and later).
In fact, most of Sex at Dawn focuses on the theory that men evolved to share female partners with other men, and that WOMEN evolved to have multiple partners.
The book's main theme is to contradict the generally held belief that a female human's "biological strategy" is to be monogamous while a male human's strategy is to seek as many females as possible.
I like the book a lot. As someone with a strong anthropological background, I have to disagree with the comment from someone who objected to the idea of books that argue general theories on anthropological grounds. Sex at Dawn has some really interesting theories to offer.
Then explain to me what the point was of so much emphasis on "the Coolidge Effect"?
"In biology and psychology, the Coolidge effect is a phenomenon—seen in nearly every mammalian species in which it has been tested—whereby males (and to a lesser extent females) exhibit renewed sexual interest if introduced to new receptive sexual partners, even refusing sex from prior but still available sexual partners.
They went on to explain that males have built in genetic protection to inbreeding that would also manifest as a natural cooling towards familiar women over time. So with our siblings that time would begin when a boy and a girl were children in order to ensure that by the time they were of reproduction age, the female would be too familiar to be of interest to the male.