Scan barcode
abhishekjain's review against another edition
5.0
What an eye opener!
Amazing book. Ignore the reviews. Keep an open mind. Read it.
Amazing book. Ignore the reviews. Keep an open mind. Read it.
samtheowl96's review against another edition
The evidence is biased and cherrry picked. Worth it still if you're new to these concepts. It does open your mind away from the status quo. Not so much worth it if none of this is new to you.
theboundlessbookchase's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
funny
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.75
alreadyemily's review against another edition
2.0
While the information in this book is at its core interesting and useful, reading this book was an incredible drag. I loathed the sanctimonious condescending tone. Offensive to anyone who can take in information and think for themselves. Also, I felt that the author relied on several false dichotomies, and that plus the tone makes me wonder how much of this is based on personal agenda. I would rather have read something more impartial and scientific.
greden's review against another edition
4.0
Sex at Dawn has had a large cultural impact by poking holes in the narrative that the only way to conduct a romantic relationship is that by a monogamous marriage by promoting the idea that human beings are naturally promiscuous by way of evolutionary biology, archeology, and primatology.
If it is the case that we are designed to be life-long monogamous partners, why is it so hard to stay together and maintain the sexual desire for each other? Why is it that without strong pressures from society, marriage tends to fall apart? Given the rampant divorce rates, something seems wrong.
Yes, marriage seems natural. But consider this: the thought of eating grasshoppers is disgusting to most of us, while the sight of a cooked lobster makes our mouths watery. However, this preference is not universal for all cultures. Actually, the preference is pretty arbitrary. What seems deeply right or wrong is shaped by our specific culture and time.
The central argument of the book is human beings, for the vast majority of the species history, lived in small egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies where private property was shunned and everything was shared, including sexual partners. It was only very recently, 10,000 years ago, where agriculture changed everything, introducing larger populations, private property, hierarchies and radically changing the status of women, and introduced marriage as we know it today.
The standard narrative of human sexual evolution claims that men and women are at war. Women select a man for partnership who signals ability to provide resources, while simultaneously trying to dupe the provider by having mating with a man with superior genetics who's unlikely to stick around. Men, on the other hand, want to have sex with as many women as possible, while simultaneously controlling their own partner(s) sexual activity tightly.
The authors coin the term "Flintstonization," the tendency to project our own current lifestyles onto prehistoric past, and criticizes the standard narrative for confusing the natural state of humankind in hunter-gatherer societies with how we've come to adapt to the agricultural mode of being.
Conservatives justify the inevitability of war, violence, and hierarchies by narrating prehistory as an apocalyptic time of constant struggle, human beings in their natural state are violent considering how we've descended from the ultra-violent chimpanzee. The book counters this narrative by pointing out the flaws in the studies of the warring tribes and chimpanzees and points out that we've also descended from the peaceful, promiscuous and matriarchal Bonobo.
The book presents evidence that we're promiscuous by reflecting on our anatomy from an evolutionary perspective.
#1) The difference in body size between sexes in a given species tells us something about its sexual selection method - and comparing it to other primates our body proportions does not signal monogamy.
#2) More convincingly is the large testicle size and sperm count, which indicates sperm competition and therefore promiscuity. Additionally, our sperm and penis shaft has been designed to compete with other men's sperm.
#3) There is the incompatibility of orgasm, men finish faster than women.
#4) We are naturally attracted to variety.
While the book is seriously questioning that agriculture and the progression of civilization have actually been beneficial for individuals, it does not romanticize the hunter-gatherers to an excessive degree. They point out that egalitarian societies were not much of "noble savages," but sharing was compulsory, "fierce egalitarianism." They also point out that infanticide is/was common and widespread in hunter-gatherers because they were very concerned about population growth. (Which, incidentally runs counter to their own idea that there was an abundance of food in prehistoric times.)
Although I consider this an important book, in that it challenges the narrative that monogamy, I believe it is flawed in that it exaggerates the degree to which promiscuity is natural and monogamy is unnatural.
I find it very hard to believe that our strong tendency to form pair-bonds, our extremely jealous temperaments are merely a product of our culture.
The book argues: "If marriage is so natural, then why do we need the government to enforce it?" To turn its own rhetoric on its own head: "If promiscuity is so natural, then why do hunter-gatherers have a severe punishment for those who pair-bond and refuse to participate in orgies, even punishment of death?"
The authors suggest that the proclivity to form pair-bonds is simply a form of human, all-too-human possessiveness - an instinct that has run rampant ever since agriculture.
Despite the many different examples of promiscuous societies, I remain unconvinced that our proclivity for pair-bonding, jealousy, and sexual competition is unnatural. I see examples of promiscuous societies shunning away our pair-bonding tendencies just as monogamous societies are suppressing our promiscuous nature.
I understand where Ryan is coming from, considering his personality is not jealous at all, he seeks evidence for universality for his own individual predisposition as the natural state of man.
What I am most grateful to this book for is giving me a different perspective of prehistory. This matters a lot because it has become widely agreed upon that living contradictory to our human nature leads to unhappiness, neurosis, illness, and madness. Therefore, if you aim to be happy and healthy, you want to design your life according to your ancestors.
However, there's a danger that the book is misunderstood as advocating for casual sex. Toward the end of the book they state "In terms of sexuality, history appears to be flowing back to toward hunter-gatherer casualness." Casualness is an unfortunate word. There was nothing like "Casual sex" in hunter-gatherer societies. People didn't just sleep with random people. Considering the tribes were normally 50-150 people, everyone knew each other, and there were no one-night-stands in prehistoric times.
The narrative of the book is incomplete in that it ignores all the evidence contrary to its own thesis, something that the author is criticizing others for. It seems to me that the best way to get things right is by always aiming at the target instead of compensating for the flawed status quo. And unfortunately, this book does the latter.
The author states: "Marriage is a disaster," but compared to what?
Maybe it's like democracy. Marriage is the worst form of relationship except for all the other ones.
Even though it is flawed in the exaggeration of our promiscuous nature and negligence of our monogamous nature, and is basically cherry-picking evidence, it still does a great job pointing out exceptions and flaws in a narrative that's embedded in religious dogma and in my estimation, provides irrefutable evidence that people are not entirely monogamous.
The authors simply diagnose a problem, but unlike Marx, they do not proscribe a solution. As a result of the book, it has become easier to understand the other sex with less moralistic judgment, and by that, I will readily forgive its flaws and contradictions.
If it is the case that we are designed to be life-long monogamous partners, why is it so hard to stay together and maintain the sexual desire for each other? Why is it that without strong pressures from society, marriage tends to fall apart? Given the rampant divorce rates, something seems wrong.
Yes, marriage seems natural. But consider this: the thought of eating grasshoppers is disgusting to most of us, while the sight of a cooked lobster makes our mouths watery. However, this preference is not universal for all cultures. Actually, the preference is pretty arbitrary. What seems deeply right or wrong is shaped by our specific culture and time.
The central argument of the book is human beings, for the vast majority of the species history, lived in small egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies where private property was shunned and everything was shared, including sexual partners. It was only very recently, 10,000 years ago, where agriculture changed everything, introducing larger populations, private property, hierarchies and radically changing the status of women, and introduced marriage as we know it today.
The standard narrative of human sexual evolution claims that men and women are at war. Women select a man for partnership who signals ability to provide resources, while simultaneously trying to dupe the provider by having mating with a man with superior genetics who's unlikely to stick around. Men, on the other hand, want to have sex with as many women as possible, while simultaneously controlling their own partner(s) sexual activity tightly.
The authors coin the term "Flintstonization," the tendency to project our own current lifestyles onto prehistoric past, and criticizes the standard narrative for confusing the natural state of humankind in hunter-gatherer societies with how we've come to adapt to the agricultural mode of being.
Conservatives justify the inevitability of war, violence, and hierarchies by narrating prehistory as an apocalyptic time of constant struggle, human beings in their natural state are violent considering how we've descended from the ultra-violent chimpanzee. The book counters this narrative by pointing out the flaws in the studies of the warring tribes and chimpanzees and points out that we've also descended from the peaceful, promiscuous and matriarchal Bonobo.
The book presents evidence that we're promiscuous by reflecting on our anatomy from an evolutionary perspective.
#1) The difference in body size between sexes in a given species tells us something about its sexual selection method - and comparing it to other primates our body proportions does not signal monogamy.
#2) More convincingly is the large testicle size and sperm count, which indicates sperm competition and therefore promiscuity. Additionally, our sperm and penis shaft has been designed to compete with other men's sperm.
#3) There is the incompatibility of orgasm, men finish faster than women.
#4) We are naturally attracted to variety.
While the book is seriously questioning that agriculture and the progression of civilization have actually been beneficial for individuals, it does not romanticize the hunter-gatherers to an excessive degree. They point out that egalitarian societies were not much of "noble savages," but sharing was compulsory, "fierce egalitarianism." They also point out that infanticide is/was common and widespread in hunter-gatherers because they were very concerned about population growth. (Which, incidentally runs counter to their own idea that there was an abundance of food in prehistoric times.)
Although I consider this an important book, in that it challenges the narrative that monogamy, I believe it is flawed in that it exaggerates the degree to which promiscuity is natural and monogamy is unnatural.
I find it very hard to believe that our strong tendency to form pair-bonds, our extremely jealous temperaments are merely a product of our culture.
The book argues: "If marriage is so natural, then why do we need the government to enforce it?" To turn its own rhetoric on its own head: "If promiscuity is so natural, then why do hunter-gatherers have a severe punishment for those who pair-bond and refuse to participate in orgies, even punishment of death?"
The authors suggest that the proclivity to form pair-bonds is simply a form of human, all-too-human possessiveness - an instinct that has run rampant ever since agriculture.
Despite the many different examples of promiscuous societies, I remain unconvinced that our proclivity for pair-bonding, jealousy, and sexual competition is unnatural. I see examples of promiscuous societies shunning away our pair-bonding tendencies just as monogamous societies are suppressing our promiscuous nature.
I understand where Ryan is coming from, considering his personality is not jealous at all, he seeks evidence for universality for his own individual predisposition as the natural state of man.
What I am most grateful to this book for is giving me a different perspective of prehistory. This matters a lot because it has become widely agreed upon that living contradictory to our human nature leads to unhappiness, neurosis, illness, and madness. Therefore, if you aim to be happy and healthy, you want to design your life according to your ancestors.
However, there's a danger that the book is misunderstood as advocating for casual sex. Toward the end of the book they state "In terms of sexuality, history appears to be flowing back to toward hunter-gatherer casualness." Casualness is an unfortunate word. There was nothing like "Casual sex" in hunter-gatherer societies. People didn't just sleep with random people. Considering the tribes were normally 50-150 people, everyone knew each other, and there were no one-night-stands in prehistoric times.
The narrative of the book is incomplete in that it ignores all the evidence contrary to its own thesis, something that the author is criticizing others for. It seems to me that the best way to get things right is by always aiming at the target instead of compensating for the flawed status quo. And unfortunately, this book does the latter.
The author states: "Marriage is a disaster," but compared to what?
Maybe it's like democracy. Marriage is the worst form of relationship except for all the other ones.
Even though it is flawed in the exaggeration of our promiscuous nature and negligence of our monogamous nature, and is basically cherry-picking evidence, it still does a great job pointing out exceptions and flaws in a narrative that's embedded in religious dogma and in my estimation, provides irrefutable evidence that people are not entirely monogamous.
The authors simply diagnose a problem, but unlike Marx, they do not proscribe a solution. As a result of the book, it has become easier to understand the other sex with less moralistic judgment, and by that, I will readily forgive its flaws and contradictions.
fallingrainbowcomets's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
4.5
Definitely learned now things about history and other cultures approach to sex.
josephcooper's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
daphnesayshi's review against another edition
1.0
Some thoughts in no particular order:
- most interesting takeaway: confirmation bias is everpresent and evil. We understand things insofar as our experiences help us explain it, which become a problem when we are positing theories that become axioms on which other people build on. But how can we do it properly of arguably everybody does it? Tricky. Existential.
- the standard narrative is flawed because we shoehorn circumstantial and physiological evidence to suit a narrative that's old and moreover, extremely difficult to maintain
- post agricultural patriarchal societies: the beginning of the end?
- white men are The Worst
- the examples are great and invitation for more personal research, but honestly reading this book feels like preaching to the converted. Also, maybe a tad bit long and repetitive
- listen, I am all for the arguments posited in this book but, aren't the writers every much as fallible as the ones they try to disprove?
- abject lack of homosexuality in this book. I mean, if you're trying to refute the standard narrative wouldn't actually bringing in non standard narrative sexual behaviour be pretty much duh?
- I mean. The end was a massive let down. After trudging through too many examples of why the standard narrative of sexual monogamy is not legit, many of those spotlighting on the many misconceptions about a woman's sexuality and drive, you round off the book with talking ONLY about how men should be given the freedom to engage in sexual novelty (with younger women)??? WHERE RHE WOMEN AT? this enrages me so much I can't even. It makes me even more mad because here the writers spend so much time establishing that contrary to popular belief and insistence, women experience healthy sexual desire and appetite too, and then to have NOTHING about us at the end? What is our role then in your utopian vision of sexual freedom??? To be supportive partner? You reveal your own patriarchal attitudes by presenting all of these facts about us, ONLY TO IGNORE US AT THE END. THIS MAKES IT INFINITELY WORSE. So your author's note at the end tries to tie it up nicely in a neat package. BUT STILL. UNACCEPTABLE
- most interesting takeaway: confirmation bias is everpresent and evil. We understand things insofar as our experiences help us explain it, which become a problem when we are positing theories that become axioms on which other people build on. But how can we do it properly of arguably everybody does it? Tricky. Existential.
- the standard narrative is flawed because we shoehorn circumstantial and physiological evidence to suit a narrative that's old and moreover, extremely difficult to maintain
- post agricultural patriarchal societies: the beginning of the end?
- white men are The Worst
- the examples are great and invitation for more personal research, but honestly reading this book feels like preaching to the converted. Also, maybe a tad bit long and repetitive
- listen, I am all for the arguments posited in this book but, aren't the writers every much as fallible as the ones they try to disprove?
- abject lack of homosexuality in this book. I mean, if you're trying to refute the standard narrative wouldn't actually bringing in non standard narrative sexual behaviour be pretty much duh?
- I mean. The end was a massive let down. After trudging through too many examples of why the standard narrative of sexual monogamy is not legit, many of those spotlighting on the many misconceptions about a woman's sexuality and drive, you round off the book with talking ONLY about how men should be given the freedom to engage in sexual novelty (with younger women)??? WHERE RHE WOMEN AT? this enrages me so much I can't even. It makes me even more mad because here the writers spend so much time establishing that contrary to popular belief and insistence, women experience healthy sexual desire and appetite too, and then to have NOTHING about us at the end? What is our role then in your utopian vision of sexual freedom??? To be supportive partner? You reveal your own patriarchal attitudes by presenting all of these facts about us, ONLY TO IGNORE US AT THE END. THIS MAKES IT INFINITELY WORSE. So your author's note at the end tries to tie it up nicely in a neat package. BUT STILL. UNACCEPTABLE
irammy's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
4.25
A very interesting perspective on the history of human sex and relationships that challenges the modern assumption of what a "natural" or "normal" relationship looks like. I'd describe this book at "pop science" as it's essentially a collection of "just so" stories, it's also predominately covers cis heterosexual relationships.