Book: Sex at Dawn

The third, fourth and fifth links came up as dead-ends for me, MA.

The first reviewer agrees with the premise of the book, and says:

The premise is... largely correct. Our species evolved to be promiscuous, and monogamous, heterosexual marriage is a social construct.

Using evidence from both anthropology and biology they make a convincing case that monogamous, heterosexual marriage is culturally specific.

I found the biological argument fascinating. Why do women take longer to achieve orgasm and why are they capable of multiple orgasms? The answer: because our distant female ancestors, like our bonobo and chimp cousins, mated with multiple male partners: a strategy designed to maximise the chance of conception.

I am more familiar with the evidence from anthropology. Much of this evidence has been suppressed in order to appease the delicate sensibilities of moral conservatives...

I do appreciate their argument that heterosexual monogamy is a fiction. I would add that it is largely a fiction of the Judeo-Christian tradition and a product of one cultural complex. It is most definitely NOT universal.

He then goes on to point out one instance where the authors seemed to have glossed over the practice of one tribe's insistence on wedding night gang-bangs as being detrimental to a young bride's health. Perhaps he had other objections. He does not list them.

The next working link, #6, is written by a woman who hasn't read the book, just a few excerpts. She has a degree in bio-physics, not anthropology.

Her premise is, primates, including humans, have varied sexual practices. This is not an earth shattering statement.

And this quote from her is just amusing:

...the number of orgasms women are able to have varies quite a bit, with some women so spent after one that they have no desire for another, some women enjoying repeat orgasms from prolonged sexual activity, and some going off like popcorn popping, even in short sexual encounters.

And her credentials:

Dr. Pisaster has a doctorate in biophysics, not actually anything sexy. She does however enjoy having sex, reading about sex, and talking about sex. Especially when she’s had a little whiskey.

Hmmm, not exactly a rigorous peer review.
 
Yes I must admit it would be nice to see a leading human behaviorist and Anthropologist like Helen Fisher weigh in on the book. As probably the leading researcher into the biology of love and attraction her discoveries are based on current research involving brain mapping imagery of present day humans.
I imagine there is a reason why David Buss and others in the field are silent about the book as well. It could be that the book directly challenges their own theories and therefore they are avoiding it or it could be that the book doesn't warrant scientific debate at all. I'll let the experts decide that one.
 
Perhaps the reason we haven't heard a peep out of the "experts" regarding this book is that they're all too busy eating their hats. ;)
 
Yes I must admit it would be nice to see a leading human behaviorist and Anthropologist like Helen Fisher weigh in on the book. As probably the leading researcher into the biology of love and attraction her discoveries are based on current research involving brain mapping imagery of present day humans.
I imagine there is a reason why David Buss and others in the field are silent about the book as well. It could be that the book directly challenges their own theories and therefore they are avoiding it or it could be that the book doesn't warrant scientific debate at all. I'll let the experts decide that one.

It would be nice to see any behaviorist or anthropologist studying in the field respond to it. I'm not wedded to them being leading.

As it stands, none of the critiques I have been able to uncover were done by someone who would be qualified to give a peer review of the work (by scientific journal standards). That doesn't mean that their critiques are wrong.
 
Thanks, Mono, for not letting me dangle out there by ending the thread with my vulgarity! You are a true gent.

Who appreciates fucking his brains out..hence why I sound brainless sometimes :eek: You can blame RP for that (I had most of my brain intact before I met her) Shhhhh...that'll be our little secret ;)
 
Who appreciates fucking his brains out..hence why I sound brainless sometimes :eek: You can blame RP for that (I had most of my brain intact before I met her) Shhhhh...that'll be our little secret ;)
Oh thats nice, now we are ending on that note instead?! Awesome,,, just awesome.;)
 
Last edited:
I read the book. It was an interesting read. I tend to believe that the human experience is so vast and can vary so much from person to person that by saying anything at all is or isn't "natural" takes away from someone's real lived experience. I think that human beings have a tendency to form connections and attractions to more than one person over the course of their lives. Some people will stay partnered forever with the first person they connected to, others will experience serial monogamy and yet others will be involved with more than one person at a time.

I like that this book starts a discussion about things not having to be the way they are in society today. The more the discussion happens the less there will be a need to hide who you are from the world. I worry about the pendulum swinging too much the other way though and people believing that no one can truly be monogamous and vilifying those who truly feel that they are.
 
I was listening to an old interview with Tristan Taormino on PolyWeekly back when her book Opening Up came out and she said something that I really liked. Whatever form you choose to your relationships, it would just be nice if more people would do that as an actual, thoughtful CHOICE.

None are better than the other, but each may be better suited to different people at different times in their life with different people. But to actually think about yourself, who you're with, the people in your life and make a CHOICE to live in a certain way instead of going with the "default"... that would be lovely to see.
 
Still haven't read it, Mono?

:eek: Well it was on my table for a few a day...does that count?

I can't read it Cindie. I know I would do so with the intent to support my belief that early human sexual behaviour has no application in a modern world.

I think the article I posted sums up my uninformed thoughts with an informed opinion.
 
Back
Top