Book: Sex at Dawn

[MindfulAgony]

Critiques of the book forwarded to me:

http://novelactivist.com/blog/sex-at-dawn/

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/127227181

http://ryviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011...as-sex-at.html

http://shethought.com/forum/books-yo.../sex-at-dawn//

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/1...-is-right.html

Adding a few additional:
http://www.pajiba.com/pajiba_dirty_t...dirty-talk.php

http://jseliger.com/2010/07/21/sex-a...cacilda-jetha/

What's interesting to me that the majority of the critiques agree with the fundamental thesis but have problems with lack of rigor in terms of representing existing research or misusing a few bits out of context. The narrative still convinces...

Interestingly, only a couple of the above are experts in the field. No peep out of the Evolutionary Psychologists (like David Buss) or Evo Biologists.

[Magdlyn]

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.

[MindfulAgony]

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

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

Fixed.

[MonoVCPHG]

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.

[TheBlackSwede]

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.

[MindfulAgony]

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

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.

[nycindie]

Originally Posted by SvartSvensk

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.

Or fucking their brains out?

[MonoVCPHG]

Originally Posted by nycindie

Or fucking their brains out?

Any literature that supports this concept definitely has the right idea

[nycindie]

Thanks, Mono, for not letting me dangle out there by ending the thread with my vulgarity! You are a true gent.

[MonoVCPHG]

Originally Posted by nycindie

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 You can blame RP for that (I had most of my brain intact before I met her) Shhhhh...that'll be our little secret