The scope of Sex At Dawn is broad; it is about more than just sex. In order to justify their opinions of the standard narrative and of their own theory, the authors have to string together world-beating evidence from a number of different disciplines. They talk about evolution, pre-historic society, economics, and philosophy. And, in this amateur’s opinion, they succeed.
I have to be careful because this book tells me exactly what I want to hear, and more. In fact, what makes it so astounding is that it steps on toes everywhere it strides. From anthropology, to primatology, to evolutionary psychology and beyond, apparently there are a lot of things that we haven’t been told and Sex At Dawn is more than willing to fix that for us. Its authors aren’t very well known, which makes what they have to say even harder to swallow.
But, being a rationalist, I also cannot fault the authors for their lack of notoriety. After all, an idea should be explored on its own merit, not that of its thinker. Though I readily admit that I have not checked out any sources, there are plenty of them, which makes this book an impressive feat of research, if anything. But I am not without a little knowledge and opinion in the various areas of academia that get hung out to dry and I have to say that… I concur with everything that is said by the book.
Do I really think that vital facts about our sexual nature have been downplayed and misinterpreted by researchers because they did not fit with the collectively accepted view of how we function? Absolutely. When you look into the history of sexual research (check out Mary Roach’s Bonk, if you will) and the attitude toward sexuality through the ages, along with the views that have had the biggest impact on sexual trends, it’s really fucking obvious that the mainstream concept of sexuality is wrong. The real question is “how wrong?”
Answer: very fucking wrong. We are sexual beasts. Our bodies and minds are designed to fuck. A lot. With a lot of people. We evolved without the concept of monogamy or marriage. It’s no wonder that these concepts bore us to fucking death. Of course, you may disagree with me and claim that you’re quite happy with your traditional relationship, but you must know that I am drastically simplifying things for the sake of summary. If this subject interests you in the least, I recommend that you read the book for yourself and then make up your mind.
I have looked for a few critiques of this book, but I have not heard any real damning counters to its main points. Most criticisms poke at the ways that the authors present their information. Some cite inconsistency, some are offended at the attempt to actually define human nature (didn’t you hear? It is supposed to remain nebulous!), some throw a bucket of red herrings by saying that the authors didn’t debunk a whole slew of other theories that could also be true. Some also invoke the naturalistic fallacy card, but just because something is fallacious doesn’t mean it is false. I’ve even encountered someone using evidence that the book itself presents for a point as evidence against the point. I remain in want of any real objection.
The big problem is that Sex At Dawn really ruffles a lot of feathers. Maybe too many. Maybe too vigorously. It’s really hard to imagine people who have lived their lives (personally or professionally) in the shadow of the standard narrative suddenly turning on their heels the minute they read this book. Personally, I’d love to see it start to drum up some high-profile responses. So far, the biggest name to fly its banner has been sex advice legend Dan Savage. But will a professional scientist, with their reputation at stake, lend their support to a premise that is so broad and, dare I say it, revolutionary?
What’s more disappointing is that I don’t see this book picking up much steam outside of select communities that are focused explicitly around human sexual relations. It’s been out for a while now and it feels like it has already came and went. People enjoy learning new things through pop-science books, but this book starts out by telling them that everything they know is wrong. It’s not easy for some to accept, especially when they are emotionally invested in the whole monogamy racket.
Thanks for a thoughtful review, Andrew.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, the book's still selling pretty well and coming out in more countries around the world. (We're at 15 or so, plus an illegal translation in Iran—which we support.) And there are always murmurings about documentaries. So things may not be as "come and gone" as they seem.
As to your point about major scientists getting involved, Dr. Andrew Weil, Frans de Waal, and a lot of prominent sexologists have been very supportive in public. Interestingly, several equally well-known researchers have been extremely encouraging in private, but prefer not to say anything in public. This suggests an answer to both your question about why no more public support? and why did unknown authors write this book?
And the book's won the top award from two major sex research and clinical organizations. So, from my perspective, the take-away is that sexologists and psychologists on the front-lines of treating sexual and relationship issues are a lot more willing to incorporate our findings into their world-view than are theoreticians.
CPR
Wow. Never expected the actual author to come and humble me. Thanks. I'm glad to hear that the book is doing well and gathering support. I suppose that I'm looking for the real bombshell, though. I want to see one of the scientists that you take to task in the book publicly come out and admit that you've got something going. First and foremost on my list would be Richard Dawkins. You treated him the kindest, so I think it should be easiest for him. Plus, he has the respect of a growing community of rationalists who, if he were to support your message, would take to it like wildfire.
DeleteBut the question continues to be, Does being natural make it good? Even if we're not "naturally" inclined toward monogamy, might not monogamy be the better practice?
ReplyDeleteMike, one opinion that I left out of this post, that I will try to write about in the future, is that I do believe we work best when operating under the conditions that our bodies have evolved into. When we get outside of that comfort zone, we put undue stress on our bodies and minds. And stress is only beneficial in the very very short term. Pile it up over a lifetime of going against your own grain and things tend to fail pretty spectacularly.
DeleteI'll try to keep an eye out for what you've got to say. But from my perspective, life is one long exercise in having to go against the grain. I don't see Nature as an intelligent designer, but one that simply "wants" us to live long enough to pass on our genes (and not even happily, necessarily). Beyond that, it doesn't much "care." We're the ones who have to care.
DeleteMike, I totally agree with you that nature has not designed us intentionally or intelligently. But that doesn't mean we haven't been shaped in some way by evolutionary forces to be more healthy/happy in certain situations over others. My idea is that the closer we get to those situations, the less stress we put on ourselves, the happier/healthier we will ultimately be.
DeleteYou know, I hate that I sound like a hippie when typing all this. I don't believe in being one with nature or any of that spiritual crap. To me, it's almost mathematics. You don't dress a dog up like a person and call it a person. It's still a dog and it's going to be happiest when you stop treating it like a person.
Mike, I agree as well - natural doesn't necessarily mean good. But SaD doesn't tell you how to live. It deconstructs the "standard narrative" that claims that it is natural for human beings to live monogamously and that everyhing else goes against "human nature". Once you give up that belief, you still have to decide how you want your relationship(s) to be, and monogamy is one option, but not the most obvious one and certainly not the "natural" one. But the choice and the responsibility remain of course yours. At least that is how I read it... And I am a happy polyamorist :-)
DeleteJudith, thanks for the reply. Yeah, the book definitely does NOT tell anyone how they should be living. It's just my gears turning that generates thoughts about how to change the world for the better. I'm prone to thoughts of grandeur like that.
DeleteMike,
DeleteYou raise a good question. The book has raised the possibility of something other than monogamy, which is really difficult for many, some of whom fail at it. The answer to the question of monogamy or something else is going to be different for everyone. The book doesn't answer that question, just shows people struggling with monogamy that it's not their only option.
Excellent review! And in general, I'm in agreement but I'm working on some counterpoints which I hope to have up on the link below soon.
ReplyDeleteIn the mean time, we reviewed the book at last month's Polyamory meeting and got a more aggressive challenge from one of our other members. I'd like see Christopher's rebuttal. Here is the link. Scroll down to "Roberta's Review" :
http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/search/label/Sex%20at%20Dawn
I read quickly over Robert's review. I have to say that her indictment of the "socialist" and "communist" ideas of the book is not a valid criticism. In the words of The Rev. Sir Dr. Stephen T. Mos Def Colbert, D.F.A., reality has a well-known liberal bias. In any case, I disagree with her assessment anyways.
DeleteIn fact, the main thrust of her argument appears to be political. She laments the lack of attention to homosexual affairs. Well, tough titties. That'll have to come in the sequel.
Yes, her review is mostly about the political aspects of the book, but then a large part of the book was about disproving life was nasty, brutish and short, which I too believe is naive.
ReplyDeleteAnd even though gays are a minority, their behavior is disproportionately meaningful in it's contrast.
Though Christopher establishes many excellent exceptions such as average versus median lifespan, for most humans, for most of history, life WAS nasty, brutish and short.
And agriculture HAS allowed for the development of art, knowledge and even the ability to comment on blogs in a civil fashion. Thank you.
Maybe you should read this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=93
Theodore Dalrymple
All Sex, All the Time
If there is one thing of which modern man is utterly convinced, it is that he has reached a state of sexual enlightenment.
Summer 2000
If there is one thing of which modern man is utterly convinced, it is that he has reached a state of sexual enlightenment. Gone forever are the days of unhealthy concealment, of absurd Victorian taboos that led to the application of cruel and cumbersome devices to children to prevent masturbation, to prudish circumlocutions about sexual matters, to the covering of piano legs to preserve the purity of the thoughts of men in the drawing room. We are at ease with our sexuality, and the poet Philip Larkin's famous ironic lines
Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three . . .
express for us an important truth: that for the first time in history we can now enjoy sexual relations without any of the unnecessary social and psychological accretions of the past that so complicated and diminished life. No more guilt, shame, jealousy, anxiety, frustration, hypocrisy, and confusion. Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, I'm free at last!
Yet, enlightened as we believe ourselves to be, a golden age of contentment has not dawned—very far from it. Relations between the sexes are as fraught as ever they were. The sexual revolution has not yielded peace of mind but confusion, contradiction, and conflict. There is certainty about nothing except the rightness, inevitability, and irrevocability of the path we have gone down.
....
A century-long reaction against Victorian prudery, repression, and hypocrisy, led by intellectuals who mistook their personal problems for those of society as a whole, has created this confusion. It is as though these intellectuals were constantly on the run from their stern, unbending, and joyless forefathers—and as if they took as an unfailing guide to wise conduct either the opposite of what their forefathers said and did, or what would have caused them most offense, had they been able even to conceive of the possibility of such conduct.
Revolutions are seldom the spontaneous mass upheaval of the downtrodden, provoked beyond endurance by their miserable condition, and the sexual revolution was certainly no exception in this respect. The revolution had its intellectual pro-genitors, as shallow, personally twisted, and dishonest a parade of people as one could ever wish to encounter. They were all utopians, lacking understanding of the realities of human nature; they all thought that sexual relations could be brought to the pitch of perfection either by divesting them of moral significance altogether or by reversing the moral judgment that traditionally attached to them; all believed that human unhappiness was solely the product of laws, customs, and taboos. They were not the kind of people to take seriously Edmund Burke's lapidary warning that "it is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free": on the contrary, just as appetites often grow with the feeding, so the demands of the revolutionaries escalated whenever the last demand was met. When the expected happiness failed to emerge, the analysis of the problem and the proposed solution were always the same: more license, less self-control. By 1994, John Money, perhaps the most influential academic sexologist of the last third of the twentieth century, was still able to write in all seriousness that we live in an anti-sexual and taboo-ridden society. Get rid of the remaining taboos, he implied, and human unhappiness will take care of itself.
...
I wonder at which point in human evolution did we evolve the need to see so far ahead into the future and what purpose could it possibly serve? I'm starting to believe that the aim of monogamy must be to reassure people that the person they love (at one moment in time) enough to marry will stay with them through anything - through behavioral disorders, abuse in all its forms, vices, emotional absence, obesity, etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd this useless need to have at least one part of your future set in stone is insured by a legal union or network of social pressure and shame. It seems to all boil down to people wanting to know that they will be loved or at least not be alone.
A goal I have for my life is to be more brave, and to have bravery paved onto my character. Relying on someone's word to you that they will remain monogamous is an act I respect, it takes courage because there is so much uncertainty. But I am also seeing that to embrace the uncertainty of relationships and accepting that they are fluid may be a more worthwhile pursuit - one that results in bolder, less emo person.