Two years ago I was persuaded by the book Sex At Dawn, at least on its “key claim, that forager females were sexually promiscuous.” While I didn’t buy authors’ free-love scenario, I thought our ancestors were much less tied to their sex partners than most folks realize:
I know I'm years late with this reply but I just feel a strong need to add my two cents. Lions and gorillas have a polygenous mating system. They are not closely related to the cubs they kill. Humans live in larger, multi-male social groups where communal raising of children just makes more sense. However, there are many ancient stories of conquering male tribesmen killing all the males of a rival tribe (including children) and preserving the females for reproduction.
Um...where is the suggestion that you are 'emotionally unstable and irrational'? Describing someone as giving an 'emotional response' is hardly the same thing.
As a qualified, experienced scientist (now retired) I have no problem with interpreting material in a scientific manner. I can also spot a response based on personal values and wished-for-outcomes several light years away.
You want to feel that the Sex at Dawn writers portray 'good science'. You want to believe their vision of the world. By all means do so. But having a personal bias does not help scientific method. I have no vested interest in whether the world view they represent is 'correct' or not. My life - and that of millions of others - will go on just the same.
So what if there are many differences between men and women? Each individual person on the planet is vastly different to each other person. Each of us in unique. To say that the main difference between two human beings is that one is male and one is female ( not forgetting the other variations, of course) is facile. There are many other things that separate us. I probably have more in common with my closest male friends than I do with some random woman walking down the street.
I don't see any evidence that Saxon does less cherry-picking than Ryan. She just attacks certain things that Ryan claims, but doesn't address others. And unless Ryan writes another book, ("Sex at Midnight"?), he has no chance to answer her claims.
As interesting and thought-provoking as both books may be, the real issue is whether monogamy holds some magical place in the relationship spectrum, or not. It was not prescribed by the Christian Church until the 4th century CE (under pressure from various emperors), so it was not part of Jesus' teachings, nor part of the Jewish culture--polygyny was allowed among Jews until the 11th century. So as the *only* valid relationship option, monogamy is a relatively recent social invention--and still throughout the world today, many cultures allow polygyny.
The real question is whether multiple person relationships are viable and ethical choices, and the answer to that seems to be an obvious "yes". There is a thriving polyamory movement, there are *many* people who have been in multi-decade polyamorous relationships, and there is quality academic research showing that a polyamorous household is at least as good for raising children (and probably better) than a monogamous household. ("The Polyamorists Next Door" by Dr. Elisabeth Sheff)
What is new about polyamory from a sociological perspective is that women are considered equal to men, and have just as much right to have multiple partners as do men--and the patterns seem to show that it is the women advocating for this, and the women who choose to have more partners. May researchers consider the polyamory movement to be an outgrowth of feminism/egalitarianism. Women are having more partners now because they *can*, without being stigmatized or shunned.
Barash's book shows that monogamy among other species is practically unknown--sexual monogamy in particular. But then, he and his (monogamous) wife end the book essentially by saying "Well, there's no biological basis for monogamy, but we as thinking humans can choose the more moral path." Which *completely* misses the point--by what standard is monogamy superior?
"It also seems that you are projecting your own emotional responses onto Saxon's findings rather than perusing them in a scientific manner."
That statement would be a very good example of projection on your part. I love how you go straight for discrediting my views by alleging I'm emotionally unstable and irrational, although it is a typical tactic so I'm not at all surprised. Yours is not a "scientific" approach.
Males and females have significant biological differences (physiological, neurological and biochemical), which combine and compound over time to create different outcomes on average. That is the science.
"Men and women are much more biologically similar than different."
Lions and tigers are much more biologically similar than different. So what? They are vastly different creatures. It's your own projection of value judgements which sees one as inherently "better" than the other and desires to "equalise" the two, usually by deeming one as "privileged" and the other as "oppressed". It is you who places this value, using one as a holotype for the other ; it is you and your contemporaries who think that men are the standard by which all else should be judged.
Men and women are much more biologically similar than different.
It also seems that you are projecting your own emotional responses onto Saxon's findings rather than perusing them in a scientific manner. Ryan and Jetha use standard self-help book prose. Their style is easy-to-digest but full of 'bad science'. The main criticism of their book - throughout the majority of the scientific community - is that their methodology is abysmal and their conclusions sometimes unfounded and/or contradictory.
Saxon may be difficult to read at times - but that is often because she is presenting the scientific evidence in a more serious manner than the easily digestible pseudo-science of Ryan and Jetha. Or should I say Ryan only - since his wife played a mainly proof-reading role in the compilation of the book?
Of course, the same is true of monogamous relationships-
yes but usually those still run after another monogamous relationship while the polyamourous do not run after another polyamourous ralationships but defalt back to monogamy ,Why ?.could it be that the hurt etc etc are a direct result of polyamory usually?.not that am saying there isnt fault with monogamy or a potential for hurt.
A lot of people drop sex easily too,hell a lot of people dont t even want to have sex (asexuals) let alone have to drop it ,soo whats the point?.I can drop love easily too,anger,etc,so by your logic no emotion is ingrained.By your logic,the fact that people enjoy being single,prove love and need for bond are learned,the fact that a lot of people dont want ,like children means wanting children to nurture and raise is learned, obviously how emotionas are triggered is very complex ,so siting a particular situation where a specific emotion is surpressed is not a prove of that emotion being learned.People in group sex usually sepress or rather rationalize their jealousy for they sake of pleasure in the momont their whole focus is on the pleasure being received ,the excitement and curiousity about indulging in a forbidden fantasy is a strong enough motive for overiding their other natural impulses (jealousy)its no coincidence that people who have a strong fantacy for orgies happen to be the ones who magically become all the sudden non -jealous,and a lot of them actually turn out to get extremely jealousy afterward one they are reminising in no longer in hold of the act pleasurable effects.Now if group sex or swinging is a prove of jealousy being learned ,then why do those who engage in those acts flip out and become almost paralyzed with jealousy when the catch their spouce in other intimate situations behind their back,wont it make sense if jealousy is just shoved down their throats by society and being the super humans they are come to completely unlearn it that jealousy would be completely gone no matter what is the nature of the relation their spouce is having with someone else.Ironically polyamory and swinging are always sited of the prove of jealousy not being innate,but if one look with more scrutiny and naunses at the rules set to protect partners from hurt and jealoust,they prove the complete opposite,evenn the most zealous ogf polyamory and those who have been practicing for decades still confess to jealousy being the hardest and most persistant to deal with along the way ,if decades isnt enough to unlearn ,maybe it wanst learned..
societies that don't have the same kind of jealousy about sex.
All of those societies have been shown to have jealousy,they just supress it as they are used to it.Its a known fact that humans can mold theur emotions no matter how innate into a given cultural norms.I just watch a decomentary the other day about the tibet where its a tradition for woman to marry multiple brothers ,and the men where telling how extreme jealous are were from one another but the try to not let their emotions take control,now why would such culture teach jealousy?.
The fact humans can override one their strongest impulses "sex drive" with celicacy ,show that just that we can override something doesnt mean its not innate.
The fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce & so many people cheat would lead one to believe that we are not meant to be monogamous
Only if you show that those things are a result of monogamy rather than ,a lot of diffrent variables.If a woman married a man who later goes to abuse her ,so she asked for divorse ,is that a problem of monogamy ?,if a man cheats beause he spouce doesnt give him sex or is not sexually comapatible,what the fuck does that have to do with us not meant to be monogamous?.By your logic since a lot of parent kill and abuse their children we are not naturally meant to nurture our children.Their are thousands of factors that play in a role in people resolving to cheating and divorse.Maybe friendships and family bonds arent natural beacuse they breakup all the times.
And the 50% divorse is a myth.And vast majority of married people are faithful as has been repeatedly shown by the most realiable and largest -sample studies.
so much for you polyamory if you think love is learned too.i have seen jealousy in 2 year olds.And something being learned doest mean is not biological or else we wont be able to achieve them.Speaking for example is learned yet is no doubt biological. differences in Emotional responses depends on perspective and point of view.
If some one learned to overcome their anger for example that does mean anger isn't natural.We all know emotions can be suppressed doesn't mean they are not real,hell even sexual urges can be suppressed i am sure you heart of celibacy right?bu would you argue they aren't biological on that premise
Over-riding our genes is a very human trait. I would say that the *culture* of your polyamory community is what helps in resisting sexual jealousy (not the other way around)
This is so blatantly obvious i don't know hoe they don't see it.
It is dangerous to try to determine core human proclivities from observing behavior in a particular cultural context. It is hard to overestimate how much culture can override nature.
YOU should take your own advice.Dont look at other cultures without there cultural context to prove jealousy isn't real.
we have also seen human drop a lot of other things we call natural too.Just because jealousy drag along it side other mix emotions doesn't mean is not real.love also is a mix of a lot of emotions,excitement,happiness,peace etc
I know I'm years late with this reply but I just feel a strong need to add my two cents. Lions and gorillas have a polygenous mating system. They are not closely related to the cubs they kill. Humans live in larger, multi-male social groups where communal raising of children just makes more sense. However, there are many ancient stories of conquering male tribesmen killing all the males of a rival tribe (including children) and preserving the females for reproduction.
Um...where is the suggestion that you are 'emotionally unstable and irrational'? Describing someone as giving an 'emotional response' is hardly the same thing.
As a qualified, experienced scientist (now retired) I have no problem with interpreting material in a scientific manner. I can also spot a response based on personal values and wished-for-outcomes several light years away.
You want to feel that the Sex at Dawn writers portray 'good science'. You want to believe their vision of the world. By all means do so. But having a personal bias does not help scientific method. I have no vested interest in whether the world view they represent is 'correct' or not. My life - and that of millions of others - will go on just the same.
So what if there are many differences between men and women? Each individual person on the planet is vastly different to each other person. Each of us in unique. To say that the main difference between two human beings is that one is male and one is female ( not forgetting the other variations, of course) is facile. There are many other things that separate us. I probably have more in common with my closest male friends than I do with some random woman walking down the street.
Biology is not destiny. It never was.
I don't see any evidence that Saxon does less cherry-picking than Ryan. She just attacks certain things that Ryan claims, but doesn't address others. And unless Ryan writes another book, ("Sex at Midnight"?), he has no chance to answer her claims.
As interesting and thought-provoking as both books may be, the real issue is whether monogamy holds some magical place in the relationship spectrum, or not. It was not prescribed by the Christian Church until the 4th century CE (under pressure from various emperors), so it was not part of Jesus' teachings, nor part of the Jewish culture--polygyny was allowed among Jews until the 11th century. So as the *only* valid relationship option, monogamy is a relatively recent social invention--and still throughout the world today, many cultures allow polygyny.
The real question is whether multiple person relationships are viable and ethical choices, and the answer to that seems to be an obvious "yes". There is a thriving polyamory movement, there are *many* people who have been in multi-decade polyamorous relationships, and there is quality academic research showing that a polyamorous household is at least as good for raising children (and probably better) than a monogamous household. ("The Polyamorists Next Door" by Dr. Elisabeth Sheff)
What is new about polyamory from a sociological perspective is that women are considered equal to men, and have just as much right to have multiple partners as do men--and the patterns seem to show that it is the women advocating for this, and the women who choose to have more partners. May researchers consider the polyamory movement to be an outgrowth of feminism/egalitarianism. Women are having more partners now because they *can*, without being stigmatized or shunned.
Barash's book shows that monogamy among other species is practically unknown--sexual monogamy in particular. But then, he and his (monogamous) wife end the book essentially by saying "Well, there's no biological basis for monogamy, but we as thinking humans can choose the more moral path." Which *completely* misses the point--by what standard is monogamy superior?
Barash is by far the better researcher--but also a committed monogamist. It makes for some odd comments from him, considering the book he wrote...
"It also seems that you are projecting your own emotional responses onto Saxon's findings rather than perusing them in a scientific manner."
That statement would be a very good example of projection on your part. I love how you go straight for discrediting my views by alleging I'm emotionally unstable and irrational, although it is a typical tactic so I'm not at all surprised. Yours is not a "scientific" approach.
Males and females have significant biological differences (physiological, neurological and biochemical), which combine and compound over time to create different outcomes on average. That is the science.
"Men and women are much more biologically similar than different."
Lions and tigers are much more biologically similar than different. So what? They are vastly different creatures. It's your own projection of value judgements which sees one as inherently "better" than the other and desires to "equalise" the two, usually by deeming one as "privileged" and the other as "oppressed". It is you who places this value, using one as a holotype for the other ; it is you and your contemporaries who think that men are the standard by which all else should be judged.
Men and women are much more biologically similar than different.
It also seems that you are projecting your own emotional responses onto Saxon's findings rather than perusing them in a scientific manner. Ryan and Jetha use standard self-help book prose. Their style is easy-to-digest but full of 'bad science'. The main criticism of their book - throughout the majority of the scientific community - is that their methodology is abysmal and their conclusions sometimes unfounded and/or contradictory.
Saxon may be difficult to read at times - but that is often because she is presenting the scientific evidence in a more serious manner than the easily digestible pseudo-science of Ryan and Jetha. Or should I say Ryan only - since his wife played a mainly proof-reading role in the compilation of the book?
Of course, the same is true of monogamous relationships-
yes but usually those still run after another monogamous relationship while the polyamourous do not run after another polyamourous ralationships but defalt back to monogamy ,Why ?.could it be that the hurt etc etc are a direct result of polyamory usually?.not that am saying there isnt fault with monogamy or a potential for hurt.
A lot of people drop sex easily too,hell a lot of people dont t even want to have sex (asexuals) let alone have to drop it ,soo whats the point?.I can drop love easily too,anger,etc,so by your logic no emotion is ingrained.By your logic,the fact that people enjoy being single,prove love and need for bond are learned,the fact that a lot of people dont want ,like children means wanting children to nurture and raise is learned, obviously how emotionas are triggered is very complex ,so siting a particular situation where a specific emotion is surpressed is not a prove of that emotion being learned.People in group sex usually sepress or rather rationalize their jealousy for they sake of pleasure in the momont their whole focus is on the pleasure being received ,the excitement and curiousity about indulging in a forbidden fantasy is a strong enough motive for overiding their other natural impulses (jealousy)its no coincidence that people who have a strong fantacy for orgies happen to be the ones who magically become all the sudden non -jealous,and a lot of them actually turn out to get extremely jealousy afterward one they are reminising in no longer in hold of the act pleasurable effects.Now if group sex or swinging is a prove of jealousy being learned ,then why do those who engage in those acts flip out and become almost paralyzed with jealousy when the catch their spouce in other intimate situations behind their back,wont it make sense if jealousy is just shoved down their throats by society and being the super humans they are come to completely unlearn it that jealousy would be completely gone no matter what is the nature of the relation their spouce is having with someone else.Ironically polyamory and swinging are always sited of the prove of jealousy not being innate,but if one look with more scrutiny and naunses at the rules set to protect partners from hurt and jealoust,they prove the complete opposite,evenn the most zealous ogf polyamory and those who have been practicing for decades still confess to jealousy being the hardest and most persistant to deal with along the way ,if decades isnt enough to unlearn ,maybe it wanst learned..
societies that don't have the same kind of jealousy about sex.
All of those societies have been shown to have jealousy,they just supress it as they are used to it.Its a known fact that humans can mold theur emotions no matter how innate into a given cultural norms.I just watch a decomentary the other day about the tibet where its a tradition for woman to marry multiple brothers ,and the men where telling how extreme jealous are were from one another but the try to not let their emotions take control,now why would such culture teach jealousy?.
The fact humans can override one their strongest impulses "sex drive" with celicacy ,show that just that we can override something doesnt mean its not innate.
The fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce & so many people cheat would lead one to believe that we are not meant to be monogamous
Only if you show that those things are a result of monogamy rather than ,a lot of diffrent variables.If a woman married a man who later goes to abuse her ,so she asked for divorse ,is that a problem of monogamy ?,if a man cheats beause he spouce doesnt give him sex or is not sexually comapatible,what the fuck does that have to do with us not meant to be monogamous?.By your logic since a lot of parent kill and abuse their children we are not naturally meant to nurture our children.Their are thousands of factors that play in a role in people resolving to cheating and divorse.Maybe friendships and family bonds arent natural beacuse they breakup all the times.
And the 50% divorse is a myth.And vast majority of married people are faithful as has been repeatedly shown by the most realiable and largest -sample studies.
Yes bacause sex at dawn is very rational,logical and scientific,give me a fucking break.
so much for you polyamory if you think love is learned too.i have seen jealousy in 2 year olds.And something being learned doest mean is not biological or else we wont be able to achieve them.Speaking for example is learned yet is no doubt biological. differences in Emotional responses depends on perspective and point of view.
If some one learned to overcome their anger for example that does mean anger isn't natural.We all know emotions can be suppressed doesn't mean they are not real,hell even sexual urges can be suppressed i am sure you heart of celibacy right?bu would you argue they aren't biological on that premise
Over-riding our genes is a very human trait. I would say that the *culture* of your polyamory community is what helps in resisting sexual jealousy (not the other way around)
This is so blatantly obvious i don't know hoe they don't see it.
It is dangerous to try to determine core human proclivities from observing behavior in a particular cultural context. It is hard to overestimate how much culture can override nature.
YOU should take your own advice.Dont look at other cultures without there cultural context to prove jealousy isn't real.
we have also seen human drop a lot of other things we call natural too.Just because jealousy drag along it side other mix emotions doesn't mean is not real.love also is a mix of a lot of emotions,excitement,happiness,peace etc