Why can’t we love one another like we used to?
Book Review: Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships, By Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá
This was previously published on Head Butler.
At some point, you may have been high enough or drunk enough or just clear enough to be struck by a radical insight: We don’t have to pray to go to Heaven, we’re living in it. There’s plenty here for all of us on this sparkling gem of a planet. No one has to go without food or medical care or decent shelter, no one has to live without love and—yes—its first cousin, sex.
Crazy talk, of course. I mean, just look at the headlines.
I’ll skip the banal question: Could we all get along?
Instead, let’s ponder one rarely asked: Was there ever a time when the mortal enemy of people was not … other people?
Christopher Ryan (PhD.) and Cacilda Jethá (MD) say there was.
And here’s the part that may especially interest you about that time: Monogamy didn’t exist.
Given that bombshell, it’s no surprise that “Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships” was a bestseller in hardcover and paperback, was on NPR’s book of the year list, and was described by Dan Savage as “the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed ‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Male’ on the American public in 1948.” [To buy the paperback from Amazon, click here. For the Kindle edition, click here.]
Their argument in brief: “We didn’t descend from apes. We are apes.”
“Monogamy is not found in any social, group-living primate … . The total number of monogamous primate species that live in large social groups is precisely zero. … The few monogamous primates that do exist (out of hundreds of species) all live in the treetops. Primates aside, only 3 percent of mammals and one in ten thousand invertebrate species can be considered sexually monogamous.”
“We evolved in intimate groups where almost everything was shared—even sexual pleasure … With and without love, a casual sexuality was the norm for our prehistoric ancestors.”
The change from group consciousness began when we stopped being hunter-gatherers and became farmers. Agriculture marked the birth of property, boundaries—and sexual exclusivity.
“Trying to rise above nature is always a risky, exhausting endeavor, often resulting in spectacular collapse … . Serial monogamy is an archipelago of failure.”
Stunning, yes? At least it was to this reader, a serial monogamist with multiple offenses. Maybe it’s best to watch Christopher Ryan utter these heresies:
These ideas are so dramatic that you plunge into the book expecting to have your hair burst into flames. This happens, but only randomly. There are entire chapters about chimps and bonobos and gorillas. There are long passages assassinating the work of monogamy-obsessed anthropologists. There are digressions that could have been edited out.
But if you skim the parts that don’t advance the core argument, “Sex at Dawn” is a thought-provoking romp. And it has terrific facts that were new—and, I’ll admit it—delightful to encounter:
—A male gorilla weighs 400 pounds. Its erect penis is an inch long.
—“Adult male humans have the longest, thickest, and most flexible penises of any living primate.”
—“Men last far longer in the saddle than bonobos (fifteen seconds), chimps (seven seconds) or gorillas (sixty seconds), clocking in at between four and seven minutes, on average.”
—Men who have three or more orgasms a week are 50% less likely to die from coronary heart disease.
—Cornflakes were originally devised as a masturbation deterrent.
—By 1917 there were more vibrators than toasters in American homes.
—Cornflakes were originally devised as a masturbation deterrent.
—From the time of Hippocrates until the 1920s, doctors masturbated their female patients to orgasm.
Reading this book—and seeing the 70 pages of notes and bibliography at the end—it’s hard not to surrender to the authors’ bottom line: “The assertion that human beings are naturally monogamous is not just a lie; it’s a lie most Western societies insist we keep telling each other.”
My view? I’m writing a novel about a couple grappling with this assertion; if you don’t mind, I’ll make you wait for its publication. Until then, I leave you to grapple with it—and, thanks to this book, collect some amazing facts you can trot out when the party gets dull.
Read more on Polyamory and Sex & Relationships.
Have you read Jesse Kornbluth’s review of “Slow Sex: The Art and Craft of the Female Orgasm“?
Image credit: familymwr/Flickr
Here’s a link to a piece with excerpts from “Sex at DUSK,” the refutation of “Sex At Dawn.”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201207/sex-dusk
The concept that monogamy is unnatural is often used to defend infidelity and by those who don’t want to partake. But then why does it innately feel so devastating to be the one cheated on and why do humans feel jealousy. Even pro-polygamists feel a sense of betrayal when a partner they CARE for is intimate with others, I’m sure.
That said, all I really want to know is how cornflakes deter masturbation.
Mike, I think the sad truth is that many of us like to feel like winners. And jealousy is what happens when we’re losers (someone cheats on us.) But I think the feeling of hypocrisy at cheating on a spouse, say, can stop us from following this path. Or reviewing all of the likely consequences in your mind — including if you’re never found out. It can be hell being in love with someone, and not being able to have the relationship go further than periodic meetings. I’ve always counseled “don’t ask, don’t tell” for people in relationships who are… Read more »
I think another point to keep in mind is that human beings are extremely adaptable. We are capable of doing whatever we need to do to survive. Our adaptability has been a key to our extraordinary success. This adaptability is a trait we share with other successful species. An author I read once called us a “weedy species”. If we need to change, we change. That’s not to say we don’t resist change but when out survival depends on it, we can change overnight. Think of coyotes — a species that Americans spent a couple of centuries trying to exterminate.… Read more »
Yes. Adaptability is an adaptation. You can adapt by sheer numbers and chance, or develop more nuanced methods of prediction. Adaptability, as a cognitive essence, is the ability to live in the moment, create mental conjectures about what may happen a moment from now, and adjust appropriately.
One key trait that helps the above and sets us apart from all other species is our extended “childhood”. Some individuals find ways of extending this trait well into their mid-forties – these types are usually spotted in the wild living in their parent’s basements -:)
I used both Wilson’s Sociobiology and Sex at Dawn in a class I taught last semester. I tend to believe that Wilson is more convincing, and that most bands featured a man with one or two wives (the usual human pattern.) But I remember from a class with Joe Lopreato in grad school the notion that more orgiastic behavior took place under the influence of hallucinogens at gatherings of bands. (We used to see this at religious revivals in the South. Under the bleachers.) I tend to buy that too. Jealousy and the ability to war are doubtlessly ingrained, even… Read more »
I dunno, the Saudi royal family seems to be well-insulated against genetic extinction. Polygamy over the course of many generations has created a huge royal family that makes up a nontrivial percentage of the country’s population, and the family unit seems pretty stable despite some of its more erratic members. If humans are built for life-long sexual commitment in order to preserve social cohesion, might polygamy and/or polygyny be just as indicated as monogamy? Why are “free love” and monogamy the only two options?
There are a lot of excellent takeaways that come from Ryan’s assertions: 1. We are not as warlike as we think. Peace is more natural to us than war. 2. Men aren’t the expendable soldier-pawns meant to have high-stress lives of competition and distrust. (Competition, if anything, should be more of a sport than a necessity.) This basically takes everything about the definition of “real man” and kicks it out the window. 3. Homophobia has basically no basis in the human sexual outline. Sex is not about reproduction, so exclusive heterosex is not necessary. Homosexual and even incestral feelings are… Read more »
We need to separate what “is” from what “ought” to be. The “ought” is a mental construct requiring planning, some form of moral compass and execution. To you points: To your point 1: This is not a Ryan idea. Reciprocal altruism and kin selection is a foundation of evolutionary theory. Pinke’r latest book tells the story of progress on this very front, without denying what still “is” and “was”. Progress is not tied to either present of past conditions. The criticism of the book is not based on promoting monogamy as being the only way, or the more natural way,… Read more »
Here’s his talk and interview in Australia. A much more thorough and in-depth look into the topics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ygq7F4TX4
For those interested, I suggest looking at the companion book: “Sex at Dusk”, which is a fairly thorough critique of “Sex at Dawn”. Some key points made in Sex at Dawn that are not supported by most notable people in the field (Dan Savage aside): – Intergroup aggression was rare among foragers (there is plenty of ethnographic evidence supporting territorial in-group aggression – No mention that the !Kung engaged in intergroup raids that were often deadly. A rather odd omission. – The faulty promotion of societies using partible paternity as evidence of sexual peace and tranquility. No mention that sexual… Read more »
“Serial monogamy is an archipelago of failure.”
Agree.
Jules–Serial monogamy works for some people. We’re not at a time where you get married at 18 and are stuck with someone you don’t like for the rest of your life. And while polyamory works for some people, other people can’t handle it–due to time, resources, jealousy, etc. Some people like to make their partner their primary mate. Yet, sometimes it stops working for whatever reason.
“Vibrators were one of the first hand-held electric devices ever invented.”—
Perfect, further proof that sex drives technology….
If, it weren’t for naked pics we would be carrying out this conversation in black and white on a list/serve forum…..
Vibrators were one of the first hand-held electric devices ever invented.
(I’m convinced that this is one reason so many women of the older generation want their daughters to marry doctors. Get yourself one of those, dearie….)
The book is wide-ranging enough that it’s possible there are parts that are totally wrong and other parts that are highly accurate. I did detect some selective logic when the book talked about humans’ similarity to other primates. When there’s a similarity that suggests humans are not naturally monogamous, then we have to accept the similarity. When there’s a profound difference that suggests we are not so similar, that’s not so important. In any event, I’m not sure there are enough species of other large primates to come to solid conclusions by comparing them. If each species is a data… Read more »
Then where did monogamy come from? The Illuminati?
Apes though we may be, many humans obviously feel pain and betrayal when a partner strays. It’s visceral. Sex is more than function; there is also form. That is where we bipeds transcend the animal kingdom.
Christopher Ryan always insists that he has no such agenda, he simply notes that monogamy might be more difficult that we tend to assume, and that people should decide for themselves. While it is tempting to disbelieve him, I think it’s simply a matter of pro-polyamorists turning the evolutionary psychology rhetoric to suit their own agenda. Evolutionary Psychology is so frequently used to push conservative ideas about marriage and gender that it seems natural for liberals to get overly excited when a piece of it works in their favor.
Sex At Dawn has gotten a lot of criticism from experts in the field. I think they present an interesting theory, but readers need to keep in mind that it is mostly speculation. Also, it’s my understanding that the authors ofmthembook are advocates of polyamory and they wrote the book with a personal agenda, which is a recipe for bad science. Don’t get me wrong, what they say could be true, but it is very hard to know how our ancestors lived 20,000+ years ago. The book presents the theory as nearly proven fact and I think it’s actually a… Read more »
I’ve always assumed that monogamous marriage is a social construct whose purpose is to reduce sexual competition to maximize social cohesion and co-operation. The fact that it’s not ‘natural’ does not refute its claimed social utility.
Nail on head. This book doesn;t seem like an argument against monogamy. I know a few people who have tried the alternatives in the UK, and it didn’t work.
But then, non-monogamous relationships seem to work for some, eg mormons, so long as it’s what all parties are taught to expect.
Conclusion: evolved social norms trump evolved behaviour
“Conclusion: evolved social norms trump evolved behaviour”
As social expectations, perhaps. In the public sphere, mostly. Behind closed doors and away from shaming eyes? Biology always wins. Sometimes, social expectations support biology. There was once a strong social pressure for women to be married in their 20s. That’s because of fertility issues related to age, a biological phenomenon.
In fact, in our modern dating, mating, and relationship behaviors, biology is shockingly prevalent. Ever wonder why women prefer taller men? Or why men prefer women of a certain shape?
Agree.