4 ms·

For a counter theory, try reading Sex at Dawn. It's far from perfect. The authors accuse "the establishment" of picking and choosing evidence to show that men s

For a counter theory, try reading Sex at Dawn. It's far from perfect. The authors accuse "the establishment" of picking and choosing evidence to show that men stray to spread their genetic material, while women are glorified prostitutes: seeking shelter, food, and security from men, while trying to obtain superior genetic material by cheating. They then turn around and pick and choose their own evidence to support the theory that humans aren't and were never genetically monogamous, and that we stray because we are trying to force monogamy as a fundamental human condition. Nevertheless, the evidence they do present is compelling enough to show that monogamy isn't fundamental to humans or our closest relatives. For an even better read, try Mating in Captivity which talks about sex and intimacy from the point of view of examining couples whose sex life has died away. This is better place to start if you want to understand cheating.

foldr 9y ago
I don't think that any society where monogamous relationships are the norm has ever justified this arrangement on the grounds that humans are naturally predisposed to monogamy. Everyone has always known that for most people it's very difficult to be monogamous over a long period. But then, we have all kinds of social structures that discourage us from doing what we'd otherwise be disposed to do.
q-base 9y ago
I have both in my "Saved for later" bucket on Amazon but never really got around to actually buying them. I'm just not sure whether they will be interesting and dense enough or you actually have got the whole message by reading a comment like yours.
- IgorPartola 9y ago
  Sex at Dawn basically boils down to this: when humans evolved to be what we essentially are right now, we were polyamorous and sexually promiscuous. Everyone had sex with everyone all the time because tribe mentality was not what we picture it to be today (strong had all the things, weak had to look to the strong for food, shelter, and protection; in exchange they offered sex). The authors claim that this shift happened much later, about 10k years ago when we switched to predominantly agricultural societies. They offer evidence in the form of Bonobos, who are as related to humans as chimps but are much more promiscuous and less territorial and violent, and in the fact that we have big penises with lots of sperm, meaning evolutionary selection happens primarily through sperm competition, not through sexual partner selection (e.g.: females have sex with lots of males, but only one sperm survives.) There, that's basically the whole book. There are interesting tangential things in the book if you are a factoid junkie, but this is the main argument. Mating in Captivity is much much harder to summarize like this, and is a better book. It talks about a whole lot of different situations and solutions that did and didn't work for specific couples as their sex life started to dwindle. It touches on non-monogamy, but also proposes other solutions to the problem of decreased sex in long term relationships. If you are choosing between the two, do this one.
jseliger 9y ago
For a counter theory, try reading Sex at Dawn. It's far from perfect It's worse than far from perfect; the authors misread, misconstrue, or make up evidence, and they ignore countervailing evidence: https://jakeseliger.com/2010/07/21/sex-at-dawn-christopher-ryan-and-cacilda-jetha https://jakeseliger.com/2010/07/21/sex-at-dawn-christopher-r...
- IgorPartola 9y ago
  > The book argues that humans are not “naturally” monogamous. That might be true. But Sex at Dawn doesn’t prove it. The data are ambiguous. Exactly. I still found it a stimulating read, but my "the evidence they present isn't justified" senses were going off from chapter 1.

foldr 9y ago

I don't think that any society where monogamous relationships are the norm has ever justified this arrangement on the grounds that humans are naturally predisposed to monogamy. Everyone has always known that for most people it's very difficult to be monogamous over a long period. But then, we have all kinds of social structures that discourage us from doing what we'd otherwise be disposed to do.

q-base 9y ago

I have both in my "Saved for later" bucket on Amazon but never really got around to actually buying them. I'm just not sure whether they will be interesting and dense enough or you actually have got the whole message by reading a comment like yours.

IgorPartola 9y ago
Sex at Dawn basically boils down to this: when humans evolved to be what we essentially are right now, we were polyamorous and sexually promiscuous. Everyone had sex with everyone all the time because tribe mentality was not what we picture it to be today (strong had all the things, weak had to look to the strong for food, shelter, and protection; in exchange they offered sex). The authors claim that this shift happened much later, about 10k years ago when we switched to predominantly agricultural societies. They offer evidence in the form of Bonobos, who are as related to humans as chimps but are much more promiscuous and less territorial and violent, and in the fact that we have big penises with lots of sperm, meaning evolutionary selection happens primarily through sperm competition, not through sexual partner selection (e.g.: females have sex with lots of males, but only one sperm survives.) There, that's basically the whole book. There are interesting tangential things in the book if you are a factoid junkie, but this is the main argument. Mating in Captivity is much much harder to summarize like this, and is a better book. It talks about a whole lot of different situations and solutions that did and didn't work for specific couples as their sex life started to dwindle. It touches on non-monogamy, but also proposes other solutions to the problem of decreased sex in long term relationships. If you are choosing between the two, do this one.

jseliger 9y ago

For a counter theory, try reading Sex at Dawn. It's far from perfect It's worse than far from perfect; the authors misread, misconstrue, or make up evidence, and they ignore countervailing evidence: https://jakeseliger.com/2010/07/21/sex-at-dawn-christopher-ryan-and-cacilda-jetha https://jakeseliger.com/2010/07/21/sex-at-dawn-christopher-r...

IgorPartola 9y ago
> The book argues that humans are not “naturally” monogamous. That might be true. But Sex at Dawn doesn’t prove it. The data are ambiguous. Exactly. I still found it a stimulating read, but my "the evidence they present isn't justified" senses were going off from chapter 1.