Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships

by Christopher Ryan

Paperback, 2011

Status

Available

Publication

Harper Perennial (2011), Edition: Reprint, 402 pages

Description

"A controversial, idea-driven book that challenges everything you know about sex, marriage, family, and society"--Provided by publisher. Since Darwin's day, we've been told that sexual monogamy comes naturally to our species. But this narrative is collapsing. Here, renegade thinkers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, while debunking almost everything we "know" about sex, offer a bold alternative explanation. Ryan and Jethá's central contention is that human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, frequently overlooked evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature monogamy really is. With intelligence, humor, and wonder, Ryan and Jethá show how our promiscuous past haunts our struggles over monogamy, sexual orientation, and family dynamics. Human beings everywhere and in every era have confronted the same familiar, intimate situations in surprisingly different ways. The authors expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.--From publisher description.… (more)

User reviews

LibraryThing member Widsith
A popular science book for people who hate science, Sex at Dawn manages to combine weak arguments with a prose style of such overbearing condescension that I had to grit my teeth to get through it. Everything is couched in terms of facile jokiness or, even worse, of coy euphemism, so that we have
Show More
the ghastly prospect of a supposedly serious book about sexuality that can talk about a ‘human female's naughty bits’.

The basic argument is that evolutionary psychologists, anthropologists and palaeontologists are conspiring to propagate the ‘lie’ that human beings have evolved to be broadly monogamous. The few studies that ‘dare’ to question this narrative are hailed as revolutionary, while the rest of the scientific community is written off as ‘the clipboard-carrying crowd’, who ‘rigidly insist’ on the status quo. Unfortunately this blanket dismissal of an entire discipline succeeds only in fatally damaging the authors' own credibility.

The debate over prehistoric sexuality is one that I have followed amateurishly, but with some interest, so I was quite looking forward to seeing what kind of evidence was going to be brought forward. By about page 40 I had realised with a sinking feeling that there wasn't going to be any. Instead, their approach is simply to restate their opponents' arguments in the most ludicrously simplistic terms they can, and hope that will stand for a rebuttal.

For instance, there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that prehistoric females were in the habit of ‘bartering’ sex, consciously or otherwise, for access to protection and resources supplied by males. This is a complicated and sophisticated argument, which Ryan and Jethá summarise like so:

Darwin says your mother's a whore. Simple as that.

After reading that I gave up any hope of finding a serious argument in here.

Of the book's other stylistic tics, I will just highlight a few of the more irritating. There is a tendency to ask rhetorical questions as a substitute for actually making an argument: Could it be possible that…? Dare we ask whether…? ‘How many families are fractured by this common, tragic, undetected sequence of events?’ I don't know – do you?? If not, stop asking stupid questions and show me some evidence. (It reminds me of a tabloid headline like ARE IMMIGRANTS CAUSING CANCER?, where the rest of the article amounts to a long admission that the answer is ‘no’.)

A few other representative quotations: ‘Sexual monogamy itself may be shrinking men's balls’; ‘Homo sapiens: the great ape with the great penis!’; ‘ancestral females were shameless trollops’; ‘Who's your daddies?’; ‘We've no space for a comprehensive response to this’; ‘Yabba-dabba-doo’. Malthus is introduced, laughably, as ‘Wikipedia's eightieth Most Influential Person in History’.

If you're worried about missing the subtle message hidden in all this facile nudge-nudge-wink-winking, have no fear, because they will simply put entire sentences that they consider important in italics. Reading these passages feels like being talked down to by someone who doesn't even properly understand their own arguments. They also repeatedly make the infuriating implication that anyone who disagrees with them is doing so because they're morally offended or out of political expediency.

What makes it all so sad is that a book offering some new ideas on hot topics like male parental investment or female sexual receptivity would actually be very welcome. This is not that book. What it really is is a plea for a return to an imagined ‘ancient [sexual] egalitarianism’ where humans – especially men – had repercussion-free sex with multiple partners. I would be more than happy to read a book promoting the benefits of polyamory, but please, don't dress it up as science.

Sex at Dawn was condemned by most of the academic community, but it was widely promoted by people like Dan Savage and Peter Sagal, and ended up on the New York Times bestseller list. It doesn't deserve the attention, and I wish I'd done a bit more research on it before I bought a copy. Instead, my advice is to consider the response that a pseudonymous primatologist was moved to write, [book:Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn|15892127]. Because my impression of this one is that it's a disastrous blend of wilful misrepresentations with very poor writing.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bragan
The conventional narrative about the evolution of human sexuality goes something like this: Humans are basically a monogamous species (or, to use the more accurate biological term, we "pair bond"). We normally tend to form nuclear family units, in which the male helps to feed, protect, and care for
Show More
his mate and children. As a consequence of this, human men generally come hardwired with a sense of sexual jealousy and a desire to control their mates' sexuality (biological term: "mate-guarding"), since a man who invests his resources in another man's children tends to lose out big-time, evolutionarily. Also, women generally come hardwired with a desire to keep their mate emotionally bound to them and a preference for men of high status who will be "good providers." (Of course, none of this keeps men from being interested in any other fertile females who might be available, or women from being attracted to hunky young men who might be more physically fit than their mates, since both of those have value when it comes to passing more of your genes on, as well.) You have to admit, it does explain a lot about modern humans, including how messed-up we can be when it comes to relationships and sex.

The authors of this book dispute that narrative, though. They contend that prehistoric human societies were extremely egalitarian, with communal food-sharing and child-raising as standard practices, and that in that situation there is very little advantage to men being strongly concerned about paternity or women being strongly concerned about pairing up with a "provider." They don't deny that these concerns (and the consequent messed-upedness) exist in modern humans, but believe that their origins are cultural, rather than genetic, that they only really came into play with the advent of agriculture, and that prehistoric humans were generally sexually promiscuous, being more concerned with community values than with "family values." And they believe that the reason for the prevalence of the conventional narrative lies firmly in the cultural biases of researchers.

You can see the potential for this to be a touchy subject. It's hard to get into this stuff without opening big cans of worms involving social issues. And at first, I wasn't terribly impressed with the authors' approach on this score. They're not exactly free of biases themselves, certainly, and in the opening chapters of the book, particularly, they use some very loaded language. (Actual quote describing the conventional point of view: "Darwin says your mother's a whore.") Now, in fairness, I think this was largely an attempt to be lively, amusing, and entertainingly provocative. But really, starting a supposedly scientific argument with appeals to emotion and wishful thinking instead of logic, along with intimations that your opponent's viewpoint ought to be considered personally insulting to your readers? Not good form, and it's even less so in a case where half your argument involves the idea that the other side are the ones blinded by bias.

Fortunately -- very fortunately -- it mostly settles down after the first fifty pages or so, as the authors actually get down to making their case. As is usual in this field, they mostly rely on studies of modern and historical hunter-gatherer societies as well as our primate relatives to draw their conclusions, though they also cite research on current human sexuality. Some of their arguments are stronger than others, and I do think there are a few places where they've significantly oversimplified the viewpoint they're arguing against. There's also a bit of "he said, she said" when it comes to some of the disputed evidence, which leaves me unsure quite who to believe on specific points. All that having been said, though, their argument as a whole is extremely interesting, highly readable, and entirely plausible. Even if it turns out to be incorrect, this kind of informed challenging of conventional wisdom is truly healthy in science, and if they're right, they have some potentially relevant things to say about the implications for modern human lives. So in the end, despite a rocky start, I did find it quite a worthwhile read. I'd be very interested to see these ideas addressed further by archaeologists, anthropologists or evolutionary scientists, whether supporting or disputing them.

Rating: Despite the flaws, I'm calling it 4/5.
Show Less
LibraryThing member sarainoakland
I found the book fascinating. Ryan and Jetha present strong arguments debunking a long-standing myth that we humans are hardwired for monogamy. Some of the arguments felt forced to me, that the writers were pulling bits out of research or bits of research that handily support their cause, and their
Show More
cause felt a little too much like a new religion it the zeal and pushiness behind it, yet overall, they convinced me. There are some really great details about our current physiology and about our closest primate relatives, the bonobo. I learned a lot.

I felt left dangling, though, with the invention of agriculture. I can not buy the repeated sentiment that this was the worst thing to happen to us humans. And the message that our prehistorical ancestors were likely 'promiscuous' falls flat when there is no discussion of how evolution and cultural influences since agriculture was 'invented' may have affected our sexual and bonding behaviors. I know the book is big and ambitious and post-agriculture was not the point, but I have to wonder how all of that plays out in our current attitudes towards sex and relationships.
Show Less
LibraryThing member schatzi
Well, if nothing else, I can certainly say that this book was an entertaining read. And most of the evidence presented does make sense when you think about it. However, towards the end of the book, the argument felt as if it was breaking apart. And the anecdote about his friend who cheated on his
Show More
wife just felt out of place.

It was like the book spent most of its time building up to this giant revelation...and then it fell short. In the end, all the reader gets is "I know this guy who cheated on his wife and it ended in divorce and misery for all involved." And that left me feeling like perhaps this was just some giant treatise on how men are born to not be monogamous and women should just deal with it. Until that point, the book felt quite egalitarian, but the ending was not. There's even an afterword addressing that point in the paperback version, so I'm guessing that I'm not the only reader who left feeling this way.
Show Less
LibraryThing member selfcallednowhere
This book was thought-provoking, interesting, and funny (which you don't often find with history/social sciences). I could not put it down and read the whole thing in two days. I definitely learned a lot from it and think a lot of people would be better off if they read it.
LibraryThing member librarycatnip
Fun read that comes with pre-packaged sarcasm about the illogical ways we have structured our society since agriculture. This contains an accessible analysis of how statistics have been used to distort ideas about both female and male sexuality and cites studies that have good quality validity in
Show More
terms of measuring what they purport to measure. 10,000 years is a blip in human evolution, not nearly enough to shift us to monogamy and the authors make a compelling argument for the archaelogical, anthopological and even extant biological evidence in our current bodies for why our culture does monogamy so poorly - and for why we maybe, just maybe, first shouldn't feel so bad about that, and second can then consider working out relationship arrangements that actually work for us.

I work in a library, and watched three little girls waiting to check out their books with their guardian yesterday. They came together for a group hug - one that involved ostentatious and stylized kissing - and then, giggling, decided they liked it so much they wanted to do it again. The forthright enjoyment of human contact and expression of desire for that contact may seem like a simple and direct thing, but gods, I can't remember the last time I was touched. We are social creatures, and I wish we had more forthright acknowledgement of the fact that we need physical contact, sexual and platonic.

Maybe the work peeps will be interested in instituting voluntary group hug time in the schedule.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ElectricKoolAid
Wedding rings are the world's smallest handcuffs.

The author argues that monogamy is not innate to humans...Duh. Why you need a whole book to argue for this is beyond me but apparantly you do.

The whole monogamy trip is a side effect of the agriculture revolution and the rise of patriarchal
Show More
monotheism in my opinion. Women became chattel and baby factories and sex was reduced to its procreative function. It is ironic that these religions think humans are not animals yet reduce sex to the procreative function and teach that we are still animals in this area. Yet, only humans have turned sex into art. To me, you are not fully human unless you are engaging in it for this reason. Until we separate sex from its procreative function, there will always be the double standard.
Show Less
LibraryThing member buffalogr
Imagine humankind is not naturally monogamus! And, she proves it with graphic examples...
LibraryThing member dragonimp
This book breaks down the myth of human monogamy and builds a very compelling case for our species having evolved with multi-male/multi-female mating. Written with clarity and humor, this book is easy to read and very entertaining and contains a lot of solid information.
LibraryThing member kjreed
OUTSTANDING. Turns the idea of monogamy on its head. The authors systematically tackle every mistaken idea about monogamy being "part of our DNA" and prove otherwise. They also make very interesting arguments about agriculture being a terrible mistake for human civilization.

This is a revolutionary
Show More
book that's my new #1 favourite academic book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member aketzle
I think absolutely everyone should read this book. It is fantastic and I will definitely be re-reading it! I can't recommend it highly enough. Do yourself a favor and check this one out!!
LibraryThing member kbullfrog
It is a little disconcerting to have your personal values and beliefs reduced to simple (and i mean that in the most complex way!) social and anthropomorphic behavior.
LibraryThing member HippieLunatic
While this is a book that talks about the history of the human relationship structure, with specific interest on the sexual relationships that humans may have had over the course of our history, it is far from an academic book by my standards. Yes, the research is well stated; the sources are
Show More
accurately listed. However, the side note humor throughout the book was a bit too much for me. I understand that the authors wanted to be able to reach a wider audience, and with the history, the research, name after name of scientists, it got a bit heady.

To be fair, as sociology and biology are not my strong suits, perhaps I would have been over my head had it not been for the running comedic commentary. Perhaps I would have put it down before finishing it... but I doubt it. This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart and my libido, and I would have pushed through.

Perhaps the most interesting fact that I caught was that women's birth control has a tendency to make their bodies react differently, perhaps choosing a mate that they will not be happy with after the birth control leaves their system. Makes sense to this soon to be divorced woman who met her ex while on birth control, stopped using it at the time she realized he was no longer the right man for her...
Show Less
LibraryThing member wishanem
A well-reasoned and thoroughly cited argument for a model of prehistoric hunter-gatherers as a sexually promiscuous people. What it isn't (and seems like it wants to be) is a justification for the dissolution of traditional marriages and the institution of universal polyamory.

The book is a bit
Show More
repetitive, but it also jumps around from topic to topic a lot. Many of these topics are unnecessary asides. The tone also seesaws from dry academia to sarcastic criticism of contrary opinions. Additionally, I often found myself thinking, "That is a logically valid statement if the claims which precede it are true, but it contradicts things I've seen in real life."

Definitely a thought and conversation provoking book, but I think it would've benefited from an editor toning down the hyperbole and qualifying the author's absolute claims.
Show Less
LibraryThing member duanewilliams
Sex at Dawn debunks the notion that humans are naturally monogamous. Along the way they demonstrate that Hobbes's view that prehistoric human life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" is false in every particular. They also refute the idea that humans are inherently selfish. They claim
Show More
that scarcity and conflict arose with the development of agriculture, and propose that "human prehistory was in fact a time of relative peace and prosperity." They show that the view that humans are naturally promiscuous better fits with the facts about human/primate sexuality than the prevailing myth of the monogamous nuclear family.
Show Less
LibraryThing member 4everfanatical

ILLUMINATING

As somebody who has a great interest in evolutionary theory, I found this book fascinating. The ideas the author presents and the evidence that is presented in support are definately worth a read. It gave me new insights and perspectives on how human relationships have evolved through
Show More
time and what the prehistoric origins were. The explanations offered for infidelity are interesting and offers fresh perspective on an already highly discussed and debated subject.

It definitely didn't disappoint. I would higly recommend it for anybody interested in evolutionary theory of sex and relationships.
Show Less
LibraryThing member AvitaCosno
In my humble opinion if you are of a liberal mind this book is mostly common sense and offered little. There were some interesting points, especially near the end of the book. Worth a read.
LibraryThing member MarkBeronte
In this controversial, thought-provoking, and brilliant book, renegade thinkers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá debunk almost everything we “know” about sex, weaving together convergent, frequently overlooked evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality
Show More
to show how far from human nature monogamy really is. In Sex at Dawn, the authors expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jimocracy
I can't say that I accept everything that the authors posited about human sexuality but I think that is their point. I was raised in a Western culture so some of the ways of other cultures will seem strange. At some times, the point of our ancestral heritage was beaten in just a little too hard but
Show More
I did find my position softening as the book progressed. This was a very intriguing book!
Show Less
LibraryThing member willszal
The anthropological perspective on the pros of polyamory and the cons of monogamy. Really great read.
LibraryThing member bness2
I found this an interesting read, but found the author's sometimes sneering approach to the topic a bit annoying. Also, the further I got into the book the more fringe I realized the author is. He repeatedly overstates claims about how monogamy is not a standard of most societies. Yes, there are a
Show More
few small, often primitive, indigenous, hunter/gatherer societies that practice systems that do not encourage monogamy, but they are rather few, indeed. Another problem I found was the universally rosy picture the author paints of these hunter/gatherer societies. He makes the claim that that they share everything freely and that violence is almost nonexistent. His main argument supporting this, is that a society which owns nothing has nothing to fight over. Unfortunately, to make such a claim, the author conveniently ignores the common tribal warfare seen in a variety of historical hunter/gatherer societies. They may not have been fighting over land, food or possessions, but they still fought wars and raided neighboring bands, if for no other reason that to show their superiority.

For Ryan to then use all of the above arguments to support his view of the naturalness of promiscuity in humans as a sort of licence to practice open marriage and polyamory seems a bit over the top. Monogamy, or at least polygyny, has been a feature of human societies for at least 10,000 years, and maybe more, so to say that such systems are not well adapted to humans misses quite a bit of support for monogamous systems. Even his physical anthropology reasoning is little better than taking the more controversial side of the argument being waged among primatologists. So, overall, this book leaves much to be desired, and represents a rather fringe view of human sexuality.
Show Less
LibraryThing member KimBooSan
Fantastic book. Those who feel threatened by the information in this book aren't actually reading it, they are just reacting to the idea that what they've always believed -- namely, that humans are "naturally" monogamous and that the only healthy sexual relationship for humans is sexual exclusivity
Show More
between two people -- might not be true.

This book isn't advocating one lifestyle or another, it is simply giving proof to the lie that monogamy is the only way to true happiness.

Excellently written, enjoyable to read, and chock full of data. Highly recommended.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jostie13
Though this book wasn't able to respond to the regular criticism of evolutionary psychology (the big question of "so what?"), it provides a lot of useful information to combat the Hobbesian narrative that dominates assumptions about "human nature."
LibraryThing member JenniferElizabeth2
Chatty (maybe a little too much), popular and data-backed! Really, really interesting book. I wasn't always clear on the conclusions they wanted to make, but it's a great place to start thinking.
LibraryThing member Joy_Bush
This was such a fascinating book, for it being non-fiction i finished it surprisingly quick and I recommend everyone should read this book. Its not dry or boring, I promise!

Language

Original language

English

Original publication date

2010

Physical description

432 p.; 8.06 inches

ISBN

9780061707810

UPC

884782788963

Local notes

sex
Page: 0.1725 seconds