3 ms·

I highly encourage reading Sex at Dawn [1]. It's an amazing paradigm-shifter regarding human sexuality. In a nutshell, it (convincingly, IMHO) argues that the

I highly encourage reading Sex at Dawn [1]. It's an amazing paradigm-shifter regarding human sexuality. In a nutshell, it (convincingly, IMHO) argues that the modern story society tells itself about mating and family is dead wrong, and that we as a species are wired for communal (or rather tribal) mating. It's a deep rabbithole. It's also available in audiobook form, if you prefer. You can get the gist of the argument from wikipedia [1] and a TED talk one of the authors gave [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn [2] https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_to_be_sexual_omnivores https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_t...

peterwwillis 9y ago
This is weak theoretical propaganda pushed by biased amateurs. It's about as accurate as a Greek myth. From a purely anecdotal perspective (which is pretty much what that book is), if you actually take a random sampling of regular humans in pretty much any developed society, they are woefully unequipped to handle non-monogamy, even when they are both in favor of it. It is very difficult to find partners who do not exhibit some form of negative emotions when their partners seek out other partners. These outcomes happen even when both partners are trying hard not to hurt each others' feelings. It's certainly possible that the growth of agricultural societies changed the dynamics of sexual relationships, but it's doubtful that in 10,000 years our brains were rewired to find any alternative model to be emotionally reprehensible. Even if this were the case, though, it may take another 10,000 years to outgrow these emotional bonds, making non-monogamy akin to emotional masochism! Regardless of what you think of the book or its theories, none of it will change how humans relate today. It's more important to understand how current societal trends developed in recent history through the use of pressure from social groups (using factors like religion, environment, or government) to suppress alternative lifestyle choices.
- maltalex 9y ago
  > This is weak theoretical propaganda pushed by biased amateurs. How so? What makes these authors biased. I'm genuinely interested. I haven't read their bio, but what makes these people biased against the current model of sexuality or for the alternative one? > From a purely anecdotal perspective (which is pretty much what that book is) It's hard to avoid anecdotes in this subject matter. Yes, the book gathers bits and pieces from different disciplines to look at how developed societies behave sexually, and contrasts that with prehistoric sexuality (which we know little of) and sexuality in some less developed societies and close primates. They show that an alternative narrative of human sexuality fits many of the known facts (and best guesses) better than the standard one. Is anyone sure that either of these narratives is correct? No. Can anyone point to anything but anecdotes to support either one? I think not. That doesn't mean that the idea should be dismissed. > if you actually take a random sampling of regular humans in pretty much any developed society, they are woefully unequipped to handle non-monogamy, even when they are both in favor of it. We are unequipped at the societal level. The book claims that we are equipped at the biological one. With divorce, infidelity and depression rates being what they are, I'm not sure anyone can claim that we're any better equipped to handle the current model. Also, there's a difference between being socially unequipped and being biologically unequipped. If tomorrow's society decides to turn veterinarian, a few generations from now will be socially unequipped to eating meat. They won't find meat in the stores, and might even consider eating meat a taboo of sorts. That doesn't mean that they'll be unable to eat meat, or that the smell or taste of meat will stop being appealing. > Even if this were the case, though, it may take another 10,000 years to outgrow these emotional bonds, making non-monogamy akin to emotional masochism! That doesn't mean that Sex at Dawn's model is wrong. It just says that you wish it were wrong. That's hardly the same thing. > Regardless of what you think of the book or its theories, none of it will change how humans relate today. Agreed. But we're having a discussion, aren't we? No one is saying anything about changing how humans behave. > It's more important to understand how current societal trends developed in recent history through the use of pressure from social groups (using factors like religion, environment, or government) to suppress alternative lifestyle choices. Why is that more important? Maybe that's what some people would like to discuss, that doesn't make it more important. Perhaps that whole discussion is moot since it start with an incorrect premise.
  - peterwwillis 9y ago
    The Wikipedia page for the book has a good description of the negative criticism of the book, and the authors are non-monogamists who wanted to form an argument in favor of non-monogamy, and they have stated as much. So it's like a researcher publishing a study specifically to confirm a theory they had rather than test for its accuracy. The purpose of the discussion is basically to address whether non-monogamy is something people should consider - the idea being "hey, we were born for non-monogamy, so let people give it a try!". But it's modern social structures that have been limiting the engagement in non-monogamy in recent history, not our lack of a pre-historical understanding. So I think that aspect of the discussion is more important, because you can actually defeat modern social structures. You can't defeat evolution. I would be very happy to find more concrete evidence of the sexual relationships of people 10,000 years ago! But I think it's going to take significant advances in paleoanthropology (if it's even possible) and that is probably a long way off.
    - maltalex 9y ago
      > The purpose of the discussion is basically to address whether non-monogamy is something people should consider - the idea being "hey, we were born for non-monogamy, so let people give it a try!". That's not my understanding of the book. Heck, I remember that at some point in the book the authors explicitly say that they themselves don't know what to do with the consequences of their model. I never got an impression that they were trying to convince readers to have give any "alternative' lifestyle a try. EDIT: Here, I found relevant passage from the book: Our model might strike you as absurd, salacious, insulting, scandalous, fascinating, depressing, illuminating, or obvious. But whether or not you are comfortable with what we present here, we hope you’ll keep reading. We are not advocating any particular response to the information we’ve put together. Frankly, we’re not sure what to do with it ourselves. > But it's modern social structures that have been limiting the engagement in non-monogamy in recent history, not our lack of a pre-historical understanding. So I think that aspect of the discussion is more important, because you can actually defeat modern social structures. You can't defeat evolution. You're right. The fact that you can't beat evolution is key here. BUT we can talk about societal institutions all we want, but if the whole time we assume that monogamy is the natural and only way in which society can function, then the whole discussion is moot since we might be asking the wrong questions. For instance, think about what would happen to any discussion about the institution of marriage if we remove the monogamy assumption. What would happen any discussion of the nuclear family?
- Helmet 9y ago
  Yeah, I'm always a bit dumbfounded when I hear the communal/polyamory argument. It seems to go against the observed behavior of almost every major society across the world. Exceptions are rare, and the ones I've read about didn't seem to function well at all. It also seems to me to go against all instinct, and for the lack of a better term, "evolutionary" psychology. Males mammals tend to get aggressive when another male encroaches on their "space" or dominion - homicidal even. I don't think humans are an exception to this pattern of behavior.
  - maltalex 9y ago
    > Males mammals tend to get aggressive when another male encroaches on their "space" or dominion - homicidal even. While that's probably true about many mammals, that doesn't mean that it's true for humans, at least not at the biological level. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that our men's aggressiveness towards other men that approach upon "their women" is a societal construct, not a biological one. This is supported by the fact that there are human (and close ape) societies in which that is the case. Sex at dawn pokes quite a lot of holes in the standard narrative of human sexuality; and they propose an alternative one which seems to fit some of the facts better. While their model might not be accurate or, and may even be wrong, I've yet to seen anyone poke serious holes in it or manage to patch the holes they've poked in the standard narrative. I'd appreciate being pointed to such arguments.
- kasperni 9y ago
  > This is weak theoretical propaganda pushed by biased amateurs. It's about as accurate as a Greek myth. Yes unlike the mythical, one man, one women and a lifetime of marital bliss pattern pushed by the bible and mainstream media. If monogamy is so damn natural, why are so many people having such a hard time with it?
  - peterwwillis 9y ago
    Well there's two fallacies there: one, natural things are supposed to be easy, and two, non-monogamy is supposed to be easy. Neither are true.

peterwwillis 9y ago

This is weak theoretical propaganda pushed by biased amateurs. It's about as accurate as a Greek myth. From a purely anecdotal perspective (which is pretty much what that book is), if you actually take a random sampling of regular humans in pretty much any developed society, they are woefully unequipped to handle non-monogamy, even when they are both in favor of it. It is very difficult to find partners who do not exhibit some form of negative emotions when their partners seek out other partners. These outcomes happen even when both partners are trying hard not to hurt each others' feelings. It's certainly possible that the growth of agricultural societies changed the dynamics of sexual relationships, but it's doubtful that in 10,000 years our brains were rewired to find any alternative model to be emotionally reprehensible. Even if this were the case, though, it may take another 10,000 years to outgrow these emotional bonds, making non-monogamy akin to emotional masochism! Regardless of what you think of the book or its theories, none of it will change how humans relate today. It's more important to understand how current societal trends developed in recent history through the use of pressure from social groups (using factors like religion, environment, or government) to suppress alternative lifestyle choices.

maltalex 9y ago
> This is weak theoretical propaganda pushed by biased amateurs. How so? What makes these authors biased. I'm genuinely interested. I haven't read their bio, but what makes these people biased against the current model of sexuality or for the alternative one? > From a purely anecdotal perspective (which is pretty much what that book is) It's hard to avoid anecdotes in this subject matter. Yes, the book gathers bits and pieces from different disciplines to look at how developed societies behave sexually, and contrasts that with prehistoric sexuality (which we know little of) and sexuality in some less developed societies and close primates. They show that an alternative narrative of human sexuality fits many of the known facts (and best guesses) better than the standard one. Is anyone sure that either of these narratives is correct? No. Can anyone point to anything but anecdotes to support either one? I think not. That doesn't mean that the idea should be dismissed. > if you actually take a random sampling of regular humans in pretty much any developed society, they are woefully unequipped to handle non-monogamy, even when they are both in favor of it. We are unequipped at the societal level. The book claims that we are equipped at the biological one. With divorce, infidelity and depression rates being what they are, I'm not sure anyone can claim that we're any better equipped to handle the current model. Also, there's a difference between being socially unequipped and being biologically unequipped. If tomorrow's society decides to turn veterinarian, a few generations from now will be socially unequipped to eating meat. They won't find meat in the stores, and might even consider eating meat a taboo of sorts. That doesn't mean that they'll be unable to eat meat, or that the smell or taste of meat will stop being appealing. > Even if this were the case, though, it may take another 10,000 years to outgrow these emotional bonds, making non-monogamy akin to emotional masochism! That doesn't mean that Sex at Dawn's model is wrong. It just says that you wish it were wrong. That's hardly the same thing. > Regardless of what you think of the book or its theories, none of it will change how humans relate today. Agreed. But we're having a discussion, aren't we? No one is saying anything about changing how humans behave. > It's more important to understand how current societal trends developed in recent history through the use of pressure from social groups (using factors like religion, environment, or government) to suppress alternative lifestyle choices. Why is that more important? Maybe that's what some people would like to discuss, that doesn't make it more important. Perhaps that whole discussion is moot since it start with an incorrect premise.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  The Wikipedia page for the book has a good description of the negative criticism of the book, and the authors are non-monogamists who wanted to form an argument in favor of non-monogamy, and they have stated as much. So it's like a researcher publishing a study specifically to confirm a theory they had rather than test for its accuracy. The purpose of the discussion is basically to address whether non-monogamy is something people should consider - the idea being "hey, we were born for non-monogamy, so let people give it a try!". But it's modern social structures that have been limiting the engagement in non-monogamy in recent history, not our lack of a pre-historical understanding. So I think that aspect of the discussion is more important, because you can actually defeat modern social structures. You can't defeat evolution. I would be very happy to find more concrete evidence of the sexual relationships of people 10,000 years ago! But I think it's going to take significant advances in paleoanthropology (if it's even possible) and that is probably a long way off.
  - maltalex 9y ago
    > The purpose of the discussion is basically to address whether non-monogamy is something people should consider - the idea being "hey, we were born for non-monogamy, so let people give it a try!". That's not my understanding of the book. Heck, I remember that at some point in the book the authors explicitly say that they themselves don't know what to do with the consequences of their model. I never got an impression that they were trying to convince readers to have give any "alternative' lifestyle a try. EDIT: Here, I found relevant passage from the book: Our model might strike you as absurd, salacious, insulting, scandalous, fascinating, depressing, illuminating, or obvious. But whether or not you are comfortable with what we present here, we hope you’ll keep reading. We are not advocating any particular response to the information we’ve put together. Frankly, we’re not sure what to do with it ourselves. > But it's modern social structures that have been limiting the engagement in non-monogamy in recent history, not our lack of a pre-historical understanding. So I think that aspect of the discussion is more important, because you can actually defeat modern social structures. You can't defeat evolution. You're right. The fact that you can't beat evolution is key here. BUT we can talk about societal institutions all we want, but if the whole time we assume that monogamy is the natural and only way in which society can function, then the whole discussion is moot since we might be asking the wrong questions. For instance, think about what would happen to any discussion about the institution of marriage if we remove the monogamy assumption. What would happen any discussion of the nuclear family?
Helmet 9y ago
Yeah, I'm always a bit dumbfounded when I hear the communal/polyamory argument. It seems to go against the observed behavior of almost every major society across the world. Exceptions are rare, and the ones I've read about didn't seem to function well at all. It also seems to me to go against all instinct, and for the lack of a better term, "evolutionary" psychology. Males mammals tend to get aggressive when another male encroaches on their "space" or dominion - homicidal even. I don't think humans are an exception to this pattern of behavior.
- maltalex 9y ago
  > Males mammals tend to get aggressive when another male encroaches on their "space" or dominion - homicidal even. While that's probably true about many mammals, that doesn't mean that it's true for humans, at least not at the biological level. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that our men's aggressiveness towards other men that approach upon "their women" is a societal construct, not a biological one. This is supported by the fact that there are human (and close ape) societies in which that is the case. Sex at dawn pokes quite a lot of holes in the standard narrative of human sexuality; and they propose an alternative one which seems to fit some of the facts better. While their model might not be accurate or, and may even be wrong, I've yet to seen anyone poke serious holes in it or manage to patch the holes they've poked in the standard narrative. I'd appreciate being pointed to such arguments.
kasperni 9y ago
> This is weak theoretical propaganda pushed by biased amateurs. It's about as accurate as a Greek myth. Yes unlike the mythical, one man, one women and a lifetime of marital bliss pattern pushed by the bible and mainstream media. If monogamy is so damn natural, why are so many people having such a hard time with it?
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  Well there's two fallacies there: one, natural things are supposed to be easy, and two, non-monogamy is supposed to be easy. Neither are true.