Sex at Dawn

(Hey! Hey, baby, baby, waitwaitwaitwait. Wait. Wait! Baby, don't... don't freak out Okay, okay, I know what this looks like, but I can explain! Quiet, Chad, let me handle this. I can explain! I'm just - please, stop crying and listen - I'm just fulfilling my evolutionary heritage and helping to cement social bonds with... um... the pizza boy, but that'snotthepoint!! That's not the point! Look, before you do anything, y'know, drastic, you just need to read this book....) Humans are really good at figuring things out. As far as we go, we have a real knack for taking things apart and figuring out how they work. Though determined curiosity and perseverance, we know what's happening at the center of the sun, we know how the continents slide across the surface of the earth, how plants turn sunlight into potatoes. We can smash atoms and cure disease and peer back to the moment of creation itself. There is almost nothing that humans cannot comprehend if we put our minds to it. Except ourselves. Don't get me wrong - we have made great strides in philosophy and psychology, and come very far in understanding human origins and our spread across the planet. But there is a fundamental problem that we have when we study ourselves, and that is that we cannot do so objectively. Try as we might, it is impossible to completely put aside our own biases, judgments and backgrounds when we study how humans behave and try to understand why they do what they do. They are still there, if you look for them, and nowhere are they more evident than in the search for the origins of foundations of human sexuality. The standard model, as it's often called, goes something like this: ancient men and women established a pattern of monogamy based on mutual self-interest. The man would keep to one mate in order to be absolutely sure that he was dedicating his efforts towards raising his own kids and not someone else's. If a man had multiple partners, he wouldn't be able to provide for them all, and his genetic investment would die out. So, in terms of efficiency, it is much better for the man to keep himself to one woman, focusing all his attention on the children he knows he has fathered and making sure they live to have children of their own. As far as women are concerned, they require the resources that the men bring. When pregnant, a woman's physical capacities are reduced and she is in a vulnerable state, so by staying monogamous, she is essentially purchasing security and resources that would otherwise be unavailable to her in a world that brought quick and merciless death to the weak. If she slept around, the man wouldn't be sure that the child she bore was his, and would therefore have less interest in taking care of the both of them. Thus, monogamy is the best bet to assure the survival of herself and her child. This is the story that's been told for a long time, and it's considered by most to be the truth. Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, however, disagree. Not only do they think the standard model is wrong, but they think it is nothing more than a relic of our own modern biases and hang-ups. The process, they say, can be referred to as "Flintstonization." As you know, the characters in "The Flintstones" were more or less just like us. They went to work, they had houses and appliances and domestic disputes. They had the same issues and amusements as we did, because we overlaid our own society onto a prehistoric setting. Now in cartoons, that's good entertainment, and in the right hands it can be used as powerful satire and commentary. In science, though, it's just no good. Starting with Darwin, people have imagined prehistoric humans to have the same sexual values that we have: a demure, reluctant female who is very choosy in deciding which male she will mate with. A bond forms, and they are faithful to each other until the end of their days. Later researchers, looking at our ape cousins, have plenty of observational research to support the idea that very early humans were monogamous. They look at chimps and gorillas and baboons and confirm what they had always suspected - that our natural sexual state is one of monogamy. The logical conclusion, then, is that our modern attitude towards sexuality, with the rising rates of divorce and teen sexuality, represents a deviation from the way things "should" be, and must therefore be fixed. A loveless marriage, a man's roving eye, a woman who cuckolds her husband, serial monogamists, all of these, according to the standard model, result from our attempts to go against our nature. Or is it the other way around? Ryan and Jetha have put together a very compelling argument that the standard model of pre-agricultural human sexuality is not only wrong, but dangerously so. By looking at modern foraging tribes and the way they live, as well as doing a comparative analysis of humans against our nearest ape cousins, they have come to this conclusion: our "natural" sexual state is one of promiscuity. Back in the day, communities were small and tightly bonded, and sex was one of the things that held those bonds tight. Rather than one man and one woman struggling to protect their own genetic line, their entire community made sure that children were cared for and raised well. Everyone was everyone else's responsibility, and in a world of plenty there was no reason to try and enforce any kind of sexual exclusivity. It was only with the rise of agriculture that it became important to know what was yours, as opposed to someone else's, and that quickly extended from fields and livestock to wives and children. Now that people were keeping their own food and making sure to divide their lands from their neighbor's lands, sharing went out of style. With so much work put into growing crops, that's where the standard model of economic monogamy settled in, and it's been with us ever since. The advent of agriculture changed everything, and not everything for the better. In addition, the very biology of humans, from the way sperm behaves to the shape of the penis, to the anatomy of the clitoris to the noises women make in the throes of orgasm - all of these point to an evolutionary history of sexual promiscuity. The evidence of our bodies tell us that being locked into a lifetime monogamous pair-bond is not what we evolved to do. Ryan and Jetha know that their view of the fundamental nature of human sexuality will not be popular, mainly because it completely undermines our vision of who we are. So much law, tradition, education, entertainment and just plain common sense relies on humans being naturally monogamous. It's something that seems so obvious to us that we cannot imagine a society built any other way. Unfortunately, if Ryan and Jetha are right, society is the problem. We have established a cultural norm that goes completely against our biological and evolutionary nature, and which makes people miserable on a daily basis. I bought this book mainly to stop Dan Savage from nagging me about it. If you listen to Savage's podcast - and you should - you will soon realize that monogamy is something that a lot of people aren't good at. We look at other people with lust in our hearts, we cheat, we stay in relationships where we're sexually miserable just because that's what we "should" do. For most people, our sexual urges are to be fought against, with everything from self-restraint to social shame to law itself. It seems like staying monogamous is one of the hardest things for many people to do. This, of course, raises the question: if it were natural, would it really be so hard? It is a fascinating read, which covers a lot of ground and makes some very compelling arguments. It's also quite funny in places, which was quite welcome. In discussing the standard model the authors note that this is, fundamentally, prostitution, wherein the woman uses sex for material resources. This sexual barter system has been assumed to be true for years, leading the authors to write, "Darwin says your mother's a whore. Simple as that." They also put in some special notes for adventurous grad students in the field of sexual research (especially genital to genital rubbing, something popular in bonobo apes, but which is rarely studied in humans) and re-titling the extremely popular song "When A Man Loves a Woman" as "When a Man Becomes Pathologically Obsessed and Sacrifices All Self-Respect and Dignity by Making a Complete Ass of Himself (and Losing the Woman Anyway Because Really, Who Wants a Boyfriend Who Sleeps Out in the Rain Because Someone Told Him To?)" I don't really know what can be made of the serious information proposed in this book. No matter how it may seem, the authors are not proposing a dissolution of marriage or compulsory orgies or anything like that, nor is this book a "Get Out of Cheating Free" card. We've spent thousands of years putting these restraints on human sexuality, and they're not going to come off anytime soon. The best we can do right now is to be aware of where our ideas about relationships come from, and stop to think about the difference between what is true and what we wish were true. This understanding might help to save relationships that would otherwise work. People cheat not because they're scum or whores, but because they're human. Being monogamous is really hard not because we're weak or flawed, but because it's not what our bodies want for us. The search for a better understanding of human nature should lead us to being better humans, and nothing should be left out. Not even our most sacred beliefs. Not even sex. ------------------------------------------------ "Asking whether our species is naturally peaceful or warlike, generous or possessive, free-loving or jealous, is like asking whether H2O is naturally a solid, liquid or gas. The only meaningful answer to such a question is: It depends." - Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, Sex at Dawn ------------------------------------------------ (Okay? Okay, baby? So you see, I wasn't really cheating - okay, I was, but you can see why, right? I was just acting in accordance with my fundamental humanity, following the biological impulses as determined by millions of years of evolution when we... Hey, where are you going? Where are you? Oh, hell, he's going for the shotgun. Run, Chad, leave your pants, you don't have time, run!)

Wish I'd read this book 30 years ago. **SPOILER ALERT** Discussion of the main themes and revelatory points follows. First, the book is extremely well written. Complex subjects are analyzed and explained clearly and concisely, and wonderful examples and metaphors are frequently offered to emphasize points. The authors also display a delightful sense of humor at various points during exploration of topics most people don't feel comfortable discussing openly. The thing that blew me away the most was his discussion of how agriculture changed the world more than any other single event or series of events. With the advent of farming, human societies invented concepts of land ownership and private property. This led to the formation of hierarchical societies, which was necessary to wage war for land and other limited resources--a circumstance that did not exist among hunter-gatherer societies, they say, because no one claimed to own the land or anything else. There simply were no wars for land or resources among prehistoric people; they lived in a world of abundance and would have had no reason to organize to control territory; nor did they store food; they were "immediate return" hunter-gatherers, meaning they consumed what they found or acquired daily. I can't find any flaws with the theories or logic. Another reader did, however, writing: “ ‘If human sexuality developed primarily as a bonding mechanism in interdependent bands where paternity certainty was a nonissue, then the standard narrative of human evolution is toast.’ If the standard narrative of human evolution is, in fact, ‘toast,’ how does their competing worldview better help explain contemporary human sexual relations?” The book answers this question with the detailed discussion of agriculture referenced above, noting the many social, cultural and legal consequences that resulted from land ownership, hoarding of food, farming, and the need to preserve and pass on private property to heirs. The authors further argue that monogamy is simply a cultural construct that arose with agriculture as the logical consequence of abandoning communal living. Once everyone stopped cooperating mutually for each other's survival and farming began, a psychological shift from abundance to scarcity occurred, as resources suddenly became limited, had to be cultivated, hoarded, and sold, rather than gathered communally and distributed equally. Sexuality followed the same path. By imposing monogamy, men could have some reassurance of their paternity, which became increasingly important, because fathers passed property to their children (unlike in communal times), so paternity certainty became vital to ensure that property was passed to true heirs, not another man's children. The whole thing is amazing and forces one to reexamine the merit and utility of monogamy, among various other cultural beliefs. Fun and fantastic read.

A friend recommended Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships as an interesting read, and I took them up on it. My feelings on the book are mixed. On the one hand, the authors present a lot of interesting and eye-opening alternative takes (many of which I confirmed through my own research) that make a compelling argument for ethical non-monogamy. There are many positions within the book that will give a reader with an open mind pause for thought, even if they disagree with the authors' assertion or prefer monogamy for themselves. In that regard, the authors did a phenomenal job and achieved what they set out to do. On the other hand...I have several reservations with the presentation of their hypotheses. The first is that for every assertion they make within the book that checks out, there is another assertion that comes off as a stretch. The biggest one was their take that English footballers in the late 1970s-1980s cheered one another on as they shared sex with football groupies. They used this as proof that we're wired for non-monogamy. I immediately saw it as confirmation bias. There was a readily plausible alternative explanation: to paraphrase Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale, these footballers could have just as easily seen the groupies as disposable pleasures rather than meaningful pursuits. That's the most egregious example, but there are more than a few throughout the text. That said, the assertions that did pan out (the closeness in similarities between humans and bonobos as opposed to humans and gorillas or humans and chimpanzees) do give pause for thought. I also took issue with what came off to me as the idolization of the Mosuo people and how they eschew romantic relationships. That strongly reminds me of Brave New World. For those who have not read it, society is kept under control with de facto enforced non-monogamy and promiscuity, as well as shunning those who would want to be exclusive with another. I feel like there has to be a middle ground, one where those who wish to practice healthy monogamy (not the toxic type that is often idolized in Western culture) are free to do so, while those who wish to practice ethnical non-monogamy are also free to do so. I also feel like there is a place for romance in ethical non-monogamy (the word "polyamory," after all, means the practice of being engaged in multiple romantic and often sexual relationships). The thought of eliminating romance and focusing only on familial and amical connections does not sit well with me. Those two points dock the book a star and compel me to warn readers who pick up this book to take those moments with a grain of salt when encountered. That said, the remainder of it was very well written. The book was particularly well-researched in regards to the history of downplaying female sexuality and attempting to corral and control it. They also highlight the reprehensible measures employed by those who sought to enforce monogamy and stamp out libido (reminiscent of modern-day incels). It really is an eye-opening and thought-provoking read across the board. I would recommend it to anyone curious to explore the topic of sexual politics and human interpersonal dynamics.

I lack the time to give this book the review it deserves.There are readers of this book and Sex at Dusk who go on at great lengths quoting sentences and citing references to justify their reviews, or slams, as the case may be.. There was a lot to digest in Sex at Dawn, information from a variety of fields. I love the book and will keep it in my library because it's stating the obvious about the long-revered myth about the natural monogamy of human beings: it's not supported by the evidence. Even when I was an adolescent, and deeply religious at that time, I felt it was a truism that humans, at least male humans, are in no way naturally monogamous. Well, I'm an agnostic-atheist and have been for many years, and though I was faithful in my two marriages, I still felt that being monogamous was a real struggle and actually led to sexual monotony. The authors of this book at last proclaimed what I always believed: humans are not naturally monogamous. I feel that these two authors are finally proclaiming that "the Emperor is naked." By that I mean they publicly declare what should be obvious to anyone, namely that humans DO want sexual variety, and probably had a great deal of it in true Hunter-Seeker societies in most of our time on Earth. Maybe pair bonding was beneficial in the development of agricultural societies, and maybe not, but I don't like the academic chorus that has always touted the "natural monogamy" line. Christopher gives us an alternate view. I don't accept everything the authors wrote, simply because they wrote it, but consider a few facts they point out (and any experienced man KNOWS): women have far greater sexual capacity than men. Why is this so? Why are women multi-orgasmic, and most men aren't? Why do women take so long to reach orgasms? Of course this is all dependent on the amount of testosterone that women have, as low-testosterone women seem to be deficient in normal sexual desire. But if a woman is healthy, and has enough testosterone, she can exhaust the sexual strivings of a dozen hyper-sexed males. And if women are supposed to be the coy or reticent sex, why is this so? These and other questions are called to our attention in Sex at Dawn, and I thank the authors for that. They have opened the subject of human sexuality to honest discussion, which has been sorely lacking for decades. Now, Christopher is not telling anyone they should go out and become polyamorists or polygamists or whatever. So, what do we do with this new outlook on human sexual evolution? I don't know. It certainly should be liberating for women, but can men accept the female need for sexual variety, too? In that regard, I have to think back on my years in Germany after the war, when I first encountered the Fasching festival period that seemed to grant monogamous men and women the right to have sexual encounters with people outside of their marriage. Their attitude during that time? "It means nothing, it's Fasching!" Perhaps all humans need that kind of release, instead of clinging to the belief we must never "stray." Other nations and societies do seem to have approved outlets for the human yearning for sexual variety, but in America, we have only serial marriages, which certainly can be harmful to the children. Critics accuse the authors of this book of being biased, despite the fact that all of the texts supporting "natural monogamy" are no less "biased." You don't have to agree with every argument in this book, but it's certainly liberating and refreshing to encounter an honest discussion of our favorite subject: Sex. Read the book, keep it for reference and discussion points. It's that kind of ground-breaking work.

First of all, the authors use the standard political brainwashing technique, if you repeat something enough, your audience will believe it: 'humans were not or are not naturally or historically monogamous'. They are arguing against the 'Standard Narrative' which is the absurd right wing propaganda machine opposite 'only the monogamous family model is natural', so they can be forgiven. Obviously human sexuality can not be broken down into two options. We know that one in two thousand humans are intersex, so human sexuality is extremely complex and can not be summarized in a catchall manner. They do explore the intricacies, however our hunter-gather past is not currently understood very well and archeology has nt yet come to grips with the age of the advanced work at Göbekli Tepe. It is very premature to draw conclusions of such ancient times from modern hunter gatherer societies. They do clearly identify and prove that humans are hyper-sexual beings. They provide a great deal of valid scientific evidence to show that our biology is not wired by evolution to be strictly monogamous. However they also use bad logic to support their point of what this means. For instance they refer to a Native American tribe that was polyamorous, yet make no mention of the other tribes (over 200) which also existed in North America, many of which had marriage ceremonies. This type of logic by example without correct statistical analysis was used over an over again to support their claim. They never deal coherently with sexually transmitted diseases and the logical fact that monogamy is an evolutionary strategy in a post agricultural population explosion reality. They show continually how monogamy has been violated, even when the most brutal enforcements are put in place to try and enforce it. There is no way to state that all humans are monogamous, since some have been homosexual from the beginning of known history. People just do not fit an either-or Boolean logic. Some animals appear to be primarily monogamous, but they throw in the occasional anecdote of variation from the norm (like a penguin trading sex for nest rocks) without adding any statistical frequency or documented repeated verification of such an observation. Are human animals primarily monogamous? This is a complex question which the authors argue we are not, but with logic which is not convincing. The most likely answer is, some are and some are not. Why do I give this book a five star rating? Because this is a discussion which is essential for humanity to embrace and much of the science is valid and sheds light on the complexities of where we come from biologically, which is not strict monogamy. It is a very informative book. It will also help us understand the unconscious drives which lead many people into very distressing situations (for example Bill Clinton). Such insight should make us more compassionate and empathetic as individuals and as a society. Humans are hyper-sexual and it is time to turn on the light and embrace a serious understand ourselves. Our exponential population growth is leading to cascading biosphere collapse. Another factor missing in this book is an understanding that genetic code is much more fluid than Mendel and his peas would imply: true evolutionary leaps occur across family branches as virus originating in space add pages to the genes which humans pass on. The old mutation in some family line theory is just not valid, yet people use this logic to justify breeding, as if they have the magic gene. We have a lot to learn and while this book does not provide what I would consider as satisfactory answers, it asks many of the right questions and opens the door to a greater understanding of our humanity.

Every once in a while you read something that really sets your mind to thinking and wondering and this is one of those books indeed. "Sex At Dawn" is a very well documented and researched book on our early human evolution and the evolution especially of ourselves as sexual beings. It covers many aspects of early humans and the kind of societies that we lived in and evolved in. One of the most interesting things to note and other anthropologists and primatologists have concurred is that human society made a major evolutionary change only within the last 10,000 years or so when, after many hundreds of thousand of years of living as hunter gatherers in small bands we settled down into groups that continue to grow even to this day with the advent of agriculture and all the changes that that entailed. One of the biggest points is that evolution does not necessarily mean change to some ideal end or even working toward some special organism but is really nothing more than species adapting to change overall that allows the species to prosper. We survived as a species a lot longer as hunter gatherers and the jury could still be out on this adaptation started about 10,000 years ago. The main thesis of this book is that we are much more like our primate cousins, the chimpanzees and the bonobo apes which are highly sexual promiscuous primates and not like the low sexed gibbons who are much more monogamous. Our changing sexual patterns, behaviors and ideas of monogamy that are really a result of this shift toward settled patterns of much larger group living and the denial of our basic biological heritage has caused a great deal of strife in many areas (war, famine, greed, religious strife, class distinctions etc.) and at many levels in our societies and could be an underlying problem in many of the causes of divorce, sexual dysfunction etc. all over the world. As the authors point out when people are willing to risk death for their sexual activity it says something about the strength of the drive! This book has a large collection of data to back up the views of its authors and some of it is extremely interesting and informative indeed and no matter what your thinking merits some thought and at the very least some serious consideration. It is pointed out that there has always been great controversy over many of these ideas and the book goes deeply into many of their origins. It also points out that like any scientific views and ideas, they are always adapting and adjusting to new data and this is just another step in that direction and at least merits some serious discussion. The newer multidisciplinary studies also are facilitating a greater understanding overall of many aspects of science and tends to explain many things that may have been missed in the past or left us with some very contradictory information, much of which was explained away in light of our various social mores of the past and present. I suspect as time goes on and more and more study of human evolution and human societies proceeds we will only see more varied and interesting aspects of the field of study and like most any human alive the study of who we are and where we came from can only continue to be extremely fascinating and interesting to all of us. Along this line other books such as those of Jared Diamond and others who study humans in all their myriad complexity definitely make some interesting reading. For me this was one of those books!

"Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships" is a provocative and highly readable book, challenging deeply ingrained assumptions about monogamy and human nature. Its core thesis—that prehistoric societies may have been more sexually egalitarian and less monogamous than traditionally assumed—is both intriguing and engaging, effectively encouraging readers to rethink prevailing narratives about relationships and sexual evolution. As Ryan and Jethá highlight, when Homo sapiens moved from egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups to more settled agricultural societies, new ideas about property, inheritance, and sexual exclusivity emerged—radically altering relationship dynamics. Ryan and Jethá write in a lucid, often entertaining style that makes the book accessible to a wide audience, not just specialists. However, the book has not won over many skeptical academic critics. Anthropologists and psychologists point out that while the authors raise compelling questions, their actual evidence is often ambiguous and selectively interpreted. Critics have frequently dismissed the work as oversimplified pop science, noting that it does not conclusively prove its central claims—particularly regarding the naturalness of non-monogamy in humans. Despite these reservations, "Sex at Dawn" remains a stimulating read for anyone interested in rethinking the history and possibilities of human sexuality.

I loved this book. I am an evolutionary psychologist; but many of my colleagues were upset that the book challenges so many basic assumptions of EP. I say "Bravo". It has been my feeling that my science had been "hijacked" by "neo-cons" --people looking to cram EP into supporting their conservative "American Way" agenda, based on the war-like behavior of chimps and the monogamy of baboons. These EP scientists (unable to think "outside the box") believe that conflict is the most natural dynamic of humanity ---which is, strangely, very similar to the "born of sin" dynamic that has so controlled American thinking since the time of the Puritans. In fact, the book, pointedly, refers to primatologist DeWaal's term for these "unnaturally" pessimistic scientists: the "Calvinist Sociobiologists". But as "herd animals" (more precisely "troop animals"), humans survived ONLY by intelligently cooperating. That should be obvious. How else ---when, daily, we had to face so many larger and more agile predators ---than by working with team-like precision do we survive? And why would evolution design a species where its male and the female members are designed to be naturally conflicted? Certainly, some kind of yin-yang complementarity should, more logically, be the rule when the whole point of evolution is to have the genders come together? At last, here's a book that properly shows the much stronger connection between humans and bonobos (than between humans and chimps) ---and, in so doing, emphasizing inter-gender harmony and tribal cooperation. At last, a book that says ---and soundly proves---the obvious fallacies of traditional EP thinking, based on a "Flintstonization" of human prehistory. The only place the book gets "carried away", is when it tries to undercut the base principle of Evolutionary Psychology altogether ---succinctly, the principle that every baby coming into the world carries with it the "default program" of our species as described by our Stone Age hard-wiring. They gave much too much credence to, what has been termed, "rapid human evolution", in their attempt to undercut this most fundamental EP concept. (Didn't the authors stop to think that, if they succeeded in this attempt, and it turned out that there is no basic "human nature" at all, then their whole book is as irrelevant as the old model of EP which they succeeded in undercutting ----i.e. who cares what we were like if we're not that way anymore?) I hope the authors read the latest research laid out in the October 2010 Scientific American ("How We Are Evolving"). The answer turns out to be "glacially slow", which is in complete agreement with the basic premise of EP. And that is great news! It means that the beautiful people described in "Sex At Dawn", as the core of our humanity do, really and truly, represent a kind, cooperative "hard-wired" nature within us. We can now begin to focus on the real culprit ---the poorly designed "human zoo" which we've built around ourselves since the time of agriculture and fences to fight over. It's the particular artificial environments we have, haphazardly, thrown together, and then "caged ourselves within" that bring out a perverted, conflicted, and selfish counterfeit of our real nature that is, inherently, self-destructive. "The Human Zoo" has brought out the worst in us! Dare we now consider the remedy of a "Naturalistic Enrichment" of our human zoo (which is, by the way, the basic zoological principle for helping other animals learn to cope with, and even thrive within their particular zoo environments)? Primatologist DeWaal has argued (in hia own excellent book, "Our Inner Ape") that humans would do better within environments that most closely simulate the hunter-gatherer environment that originally shape our psychology (which is, really, so simple, its almost tautological). This new research supports this idea, and the possibility for a bright future, at last, to a species so lost and disconnected ever since it separated from its Wild environment. We're, at last, beginning to untangle the deep knots we have created for ourselves, and that have so tangled our best aspirations (beating ourselves up over unnatural monogamy, for one). AND THIS BOOK IS ONLY THE BEGINNING of a new "back to Nature" revolution that I see as being guided, not (like the old one) by hopelessly idealistic "hippies", but by sound "natural science psychology" ---a revolution that will never go away, any more than Galileo's now universally-accepted pronouncement of the sun's central location (despite then massive religious interests united against it for hundreds of years). Science always wins in the end! Our pessimistic belief in our deep "badness" has gotten us nowhere. Maybe what we conceive of as "good" is not "from the sky", but, rather, a deep hard-wired remembrance of who we really are (and from where else COULD such an deep mind-set be derived?) This is a time for a new realistic optimism we so desperately need (and, truly, "the real" should always, at least, try to approach "the ideal" ---i.e even a good mousetrap is just a step towards a better one!) So, who knows, maybe McCartney's "Get Back to Where You Once Belonged" may become the new guiding mantra for our times.

Love, marriage, the death of sexual desire and the temptation for adultery is the familiar romantic arc for most peoples relationships in most contemporary societies. Like taxes and death it appears inevitable but is this necessarily the case? The authors of thought provoking, well researched and frequently funny book don't think so. They build a strong case that marriage, "monogamous mating" or the "long-term pair bond" is not how our species evolved and is instead a social adaptation to the recent economic conditions since we transitioned from Hunter-Gatherer to agricultural societies and exchanged the egalitarian culture of the former for the propertied culture of the latter. A social adaptation which causes all sorts of problems and has caused untold misery for our species, from the institutionalised sexual abuse of religious organisations to the charnel houses of foundling hospitals to witchcraft trials to the everyday frustration most people experience during much of their lives. In this sense the book reads a bit like an update of Frederick Engels classic "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" who suggested monogamous marriage was a means by men to guarantee paternity and thus ensure property was passed down to his heirs and not, say, the filthy servants. The biggest weakness of Engels book today of course is that it is so out of date and much more is known about prehistory, human evolution and biology, the behaviour of other primates and of the variety in forms of social organisation we as a species can exhibit. There is a lot of science in this book but nothing beyond the non-scientist and everything is properly referenced with a huge bibliography so its easy to use as a launch pad to explore specific areas you might be more interested in. Some other reviewers have questioned the authors accuracy and their integrity but I think that is unfair as the areas I am familiar with are well dealt with. In any case the book is so well referenced its easy to follow up and discover for yourself. Plus any book that covers a large number of fields such as psychology, primatology, anthropology, developmental biology is going to be walking into a minefield of dispute and controversy. You should buy this book if you're looking for a fresh perspective on human sexual behaviour, it goes so contrary to the standard narrative most scientists in the field hold, never mind that of popular culture. There is also a lot of explicit discussion of sex in this book. I'm a pretty open minded guy (or I thought I was) but some of the things our species gets up to had me nearly spilling my coffee.

This was a lucky find. I really just wanted to see what Amazon would spit out if I searched "Sex". After I'd read the accessible part of the introduction online I immediately bought the E-Book and went to it. Topic: The topic is everyone's favourite topic: Sex. Sex and what could be considered "natural" sexual behaviour. The authors set out (and succeed gloriously in my eyes) to replace the standard picture of human sexual behaviour. Usually the story runs like this. Man impresses woman by beating all competitors in some way (or just rapes her). Man impregnates woman, guards her (or rather his offspring) fiercely, while trying to get as many lucky shots on the side (male adultery). Woman prostitutes herself for social security to one boring but rich guy, then tries to get knocked up by the "bikers in the bar down the road" (female adultery). This is called mixed-mating strategy and stems from our will to proliferate our genes. Monogamy is still also somehow supposedly part of all this. Sounds horrible and weird? Luckily Ryan and Jetha present a heap of very different arguments why this is not "natural" human behaviour, insofar as we didn't act like this for a very long time of our history. All the misery began only 10 000 years ago when we settled down and began to acquire and defend our property... In fact, the idea of a brutal, poor (etc.) "state of nature" is so comprehensively destroyed that I recommended "Sex at Dawn" for this reason alone to my philosophy undergrads. This is a (more or less) scientific book, not a guidebook, which is just as well. The fact that we were more like happy, stressfree bonobos just 10 000 years back doesn't erase our upbringing or our culturally imparted values. Just because I now believe that our ancestors didn't know jealousy the way we do, doesn't mean I stopped being jealous. But it can start you thinking about the (pitiful?) state of your emotional surroundings and the ways in which we frame them. So while this is not a philosophy book, it definetly is a philosophical book in the best possible sense. Style: The authors write a fluid, light style which makes the book an enjoyable read indeed. They can turn a phrase without ever being flippant for the sake of it. Even if you aren't a psychiatrist (Jetha) or a psychologist (Ryan) or anyone working in the fields of evolutionary biology/psychology/anthropology you'll still be able follow every turn and each of the many well presented arguments. Verdict: Brillantly written, brillantly argued, and in regard to the obvious importance of the topic to our life and happiness, this book is a must-read. It will change your view of human nature, even if some of the details might turn out to be inaccurate. If you read one book this year, let it be this one.

If you struggle to find your place,set a name to your feeling, understand your wife or simply understand your sexuality, this book is for you. I don’t have many book that saved my life, this one did.

I read this book to understand the current trends in sexuality all over the world. I was not disappointed. The authors are arguing that monogamy was thrust on us by religions and we are BY NATURE variety seekers. This book will not prompt you to cheat on your spouse but it will help you understand why many do so. Read the book not jto udge but to understand people.

Fantastic!