4 ms·

I found myself very irritated by quotes like this: "The book argues that humans are not “naturally” monogamous. That might be true. But Sex at Dawn doesn’t pro

I found myself very irritated by quotes like this: "The book argues that humans are not “naturally” monogamous. That might be true. But Sex at Dawn doesn’t prove it." "males evolved a strong appetite for sexual novelty and a robust aversion to the overly familiar.” But they don’t have any evidence for that" If they don't, I think it is safe to assume it is because the authors assume their readers have a bit of life experience. And not because there aren't volumes of biological and historical evidence to support these claims if they wanted to include it. I just don't see these two points as even being controversial enough to be up for debate. You don't need that much romantic history to know that men have a strong appetite for sexual novelty, and that highly desirable men are not monogamous, that women know this ahead of time and are willingly complicit in their non-monogamy. Ok, I guess for the type of guy who would write these critiques, some things need to be spelled out on paper. You can just step outside in the world though and not need it to be.

philwelch 16y ago
There are lots of things that we supposedly all know from life experience that are completely and totally false.
- datapimp 16y ago
  On the point about male's appetite for variety and novelty, life experience can give you enough of a hunch that this is biologically innate, and not cultural. Stacks and Stacks of books on human history, recent tabloids, and the NSA's archive of everyone's web browser histories can pretty much confirm this hunch for you if you're still not convinced
  - philwelch 16y ago
    I'm not really arguing that specific point, I'm just saying common knowledge and life experience mean absolutely nothing in the context of anthropology--or any science, as a matter of fact.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    And the fact that males have been in the dominant position culturally for effectively all of recorded time implies what cultural influence? That males have had the ability to choose partner(s) for so long has affected a lot, but implies nothing about biological predispositions to "novelty". Also consider that male-polygamy not too far back in time for much of the western world was relatively expected ("mistresses"), but female-polygamy often meant death. That sort of influence tends to leave some lasting impressions on a culture.
Groxx 16y ago
Even the "obvious" isn't necessarily true. How much is cultural, and how much is biology? If you can't show something's not cultural, have you shown anything aside from supporting/fighting prejudice with prejudice?
- jseliger 16y ago
  The grandparent is really similar to a post someone just left on my review. In response, I wrote: It's not obvious at all that this is more true than men than of women, or if so, how. That's why people making these kinds of claims need evidence—otherwise you're merely telling stories and repeating stereotypes. For another example of this general principle, see Mark Liberman's <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/24/sex_on_the_brain/>Women http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/24/s... use 20,000 words a day, men only 7,000 - or so says a new bestseller. Fact-checking ``The Female Brain."</a>.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- jseliger 16y ago
  The grandparent is really similar to a post someone just left on my review. In response, I wrote: It's not obvious at all that this is more true than men than of women, or if so, how. That's why people making these kinds of claims need evidence—otherwise you're merely telling stories and repeating stereotypes. For another example of this general principle, see Mark Liberman's http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/24/sex_on_the_brain/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/24/s... Women use 20,000 words a day, men only 7,000 - or so says a new bestseller. Fact-checking ``The Female Brain."</a>.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    Oh, ouch. The author for that number-pair also wrote "Why Men Don't Have a Clue and Women Always Need More Shoes", "Why Men Lie and Women Cry", and "Why Men Can Only Do One Thing at a Time and Women Never Stop Talking." (from your link) Scientific-credibility nose-dive right there.

philwelch 16y ago

There are lots of things that we supposedly all know from life experience that are completely and totally false.

datapimp 16y ago
On the point about male's appetite for variety and novelty, life experience can give you enough of a hunch that this is biologically innate, and not cultural. Stacks and Stacks of books on human history, recent tabloids, and the NSA's archive of everyone's web browser histories can pretty much confirm this hunch for you if you're still not convinced
- philwelch 16y ago
  I'm not really arguing that specific point, I'm just saying common knowledge and life experience mean absolutely nothing in the context of anthropology--or any science, as a matter of fact.
- Groxx 16y ago
  And the fact that males have been in the dominant position culturally for effectively all of recorded time implies what cultural influence? That males have had the ability to choose partner(s) for so long has affected a lot, but implies nothing about biological predispositions to "novelty". Also consider that male-polygamy not too far back in time for much of the western world was relatively expected ("mistresses"), but female-polygamy often meant death. That sort of influence tends to leave some lasting impressions on a culture.

Groxx 16y ago

Even the "obvious" isn't necessarily true. How much is cultural, and how much is biology? If you can't show something's not cultural, have you shown anything aside from supporting/fighting prejudice with prejudice?

jseliger 16y ago
The grandparent is really similar to a post someone just left on my review. In response, I wrote: It's not obvious at all that this is more true than men than of women, or if so, how. That's why people making these kinds of claims need evidence—otherwise you're merely telling stories and repeating stereotypes. For another example of this general principle, see Mark Liberman's <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/24/sex_on_the_brain/>Women http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/24/s... use 20,000 words a day, men only 7,000 - or so says a new bestseller. Fact-checking ``The Female Brain."</a>.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
jseliger 16y ago
The grandparent is really similar to a post someone just left on my review. In response, I wrote: It's not obvious at all that this is more true than men than of women, or if so, how. That's why people making these kinds of claims need evidence—otherwise you're merely telling stories and repeating stereotypes. For another example of this general principle, see Mark Liberman's http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/24/sex_on_the_brain/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/24/s... Women use 20,000 words a day, men only 7,000 - or so says a new bestseller. Fact-checking ``The Female Brain."</a>.
- Groxx 16y ago
  Oh, ouch. The author for that number-pair also wrote "Why Men Don't Have a Clue and Women Always Need More Shoes", "Why Men Lie and Women Cry", and "Why Men Can Only Do One Thing at a Time and Women Never Stop Talking." (from your link) Scientific-credibility nose-dive right there.