Sex at dawn

Let me start by saying that I am by no means an expert for human mating systems, anthropology or primatology, so I'm not the perfect judge for all the "facts" presented in this book. I'm also biased, as I had strong prior belief in the hypothesis that humans are not monogamous by nature, so goodbye any perceived neutrality with respect to this review.

The authors of this book have set out to challenge the view that humans have been shaped into a monogamous species by evolution. Doing so they criticize a lot of the evidence put forward by traditional evolutionary psychology, primatology and anthropology. For example the TED talk by Steven Pinker gets torn apart, for the obvious cherry picking done on the data side. All their criticism on studies supporting natural monogamy seems to be well done as far as I can tell. They mix all this with lots of wit and pop culture (who wouldn't love some good quotes by Eddie Vedder and out of "The African Queen"?). I'd say they do a good job on challenging the standard Evolutionary Psychology stories told about human mating (and I like seeing EP being called out, just like every other evolutionary biologist).

But, for the claims they make to support their story – which in the end is equally build on sand – I feel a bit conflicted. Having prior belief certainly makes me a candidate for confirmation bias, so I'm a bit puzzled on whether they have some good points or just have perfected the art of cherry picking the data as well. An example: The study by Gallop, that (allegedly) "shows" that the human penis shape is an adaptation to sperm competition, is given as evidence for the books hypothesis. Just that all the criticism one might apply to that study (see P.Z. Myers for a take on this, regardless of what you think of him as person) isn't mentioned at all. Details like this make me wonder how much other stuff the authors have left out to make a more compelling argument…

In the end I still enjoyed the book. The attacks on "monogamy is natural for humans" are well placed and nice to read and are nice evidence why that story doesn't really check out. But on the other hand the authors fail, at least for me, to make a compelling case for their position. If the authors weren't already preaching to the choir I'd probably have given 3 stars instead. If you're interested in the whole topic you can give it a try, just don't believe every "facts" they are giving to support their argument.

What did I think? What didn't I think. A well researched, it seems, (although I didn't hunt down the copious references) volume on polygamy.

For many the instinctive argument would be obvious by tell tale signs in our every day lives but to have some research unfolded into the specific relationship we have with that is well deserved - although not new, these studies into polygamy before agriculture are not findings that are revelatory to us through this book but it is a relevance that is both systematic and semantic and should be taken further. Moreover we should by now be seeking individual reference points to this material.

The overall colour of the book is to introduce the research in somewhat of a mix between opinion piece and well researched paper, although at times the 'asides' come across as Cosmopolitan Magazine editorial, I would have preferred something dryer than zippy elbows into my chest when observing apparent paradox or irony. I guess though this can be a good thing for those looking for some literary gusto and not subtle wit.

All in all if you are seeking some wisdom into Polygamy or Polyamory this is a worthwhile addition to the bookshelf. The sheer endurance of it should be enough to feast upon, and provide insight otherwise overlooked in all the other alternative sources of information about this topic, refreshing to have it compiled so vigilantly.

Monogamy is bullshit. It's unnatural. Everybody knows that, yet we spend our lives living and defending the lie. How did the myth get started? Why does it persist? In a word: agriculture. It's a long and convoluted story, but it all boils down to Stuff. Once we settled down and started accumulating Stuff, we had to start defending it. And "Stuff", of course, includes wimminfolk. There you go.

It's hard to imagine prehistory. Really hard. There's not much to go on... but there's a lot more every year: archaeological evidence, anthropological, DNA analysis, behavioral studies of our Bonobo cousins. And all of it -- all of it -- points to a history that's different from what we grew up believing. The last 10,000 years are an aberration, and one that's making us sick.

Sex at Dawn is the most thorough study I've yet read on the subject. It's also the most readable. Ryan and Jethá present the evidence clearly, in a sometimes chiding but always loving voice. They don't always agree with the conclusions of the scientists whose work they cite... but they gently show how even the scientists themselves don't agree with the evidence they've collected. (It's understandable: we've all got a lot of misconceptions to outgrow, and that's hard.)

Sex at Dawn explains us better than anything I've yet read. This is an important book, well worth reading and thinking about.