OP: Sex at Dusk... a counter to Sex at Dawn

Thanx for the heads up, g-dubz! I much enjoyed reading Sex at Dawn (with thanx to EEK ofcourse for directing my attention to it :)) I've put marks and notes in the book, which I frankly only do when it really intrests me :) But I must confess I've had my critques and question-marks at certain sections. And I've actually been hoping that someone would offer counter-arguments. Since I feel that information tends to get "better" once people start to criticize and debate. Btw; I also own "why we love" by Helen Fisher. I bought these books together, unknowing at that moment that Sex at Dawn actually criticizes her work. Making it an even better match to buy :) This thread also provides me with a reminder to read her work as well.

As far as contributions to a discussion; At the time I did want to post comments, but the forum was such a mess... Honestly; I feel like it's never recovered from the great migration, making it rather unattractive to engage in constructive long-term discussion. The format now seems to be more of a focus on answer-the-question-of-the-day-and-don't-look-back. But that's another discussion ;)

If I find the time, I will review my notes and add comments on Sex at Dawn here. And perhaps add on Sex at Dusk in the future :)

RedRoses

Posted: 03 Oct 06:59

And yeah, while Sex at Dawn is interesting, their theory (while good) still doesn't seem to fit even though it does make sense logically (probably because there isn't much evidence to support it) so I'm glad someone decided to make a counter argument to it. I just with there was an ebook version so I can read it on my Nook but I'm also interested see what dear ol EEK has to say LOL.

And you're right about the forum. It doesn't function as good as it did before.

g-dubz

Posted: 03 Oct 06:59

I love the book and contrary to 'popular' opinion - it is all too TRUE. Most of the evidence has been mis-interpreted throughout the years and most has also been tainted by culture. We should be comparing ourselves to bonobos and not to gibbons. I will read the 'counter-arguement' and let you know what I think of it.

EvilEvilKitten

Posted: 03 Oct 07:00

My main critique on Sex at Dawn
I've re-gathered some of my thoughts and notes. And I think that this post sums up the major chunks. Maybe I'll add more later...

First of all; I can see there is a solid case when scrutinizing the roots of our sexuality. As solid as it ever can be when trying to research something that has happened so very long ago. Scientists do not have the luxury any more than other human beings have to get rid of their baggage. We look at the world the way we see it, not the way it is. Or how it was, for that matter. It's very hard to shut down these patterns so firmly locked inside our minds. It's like how someone recently told me that several ancient buildings were once identified as palaces in Greece and are still marked as such for tourism, may actually have never been palaces, but homes. But the archeologist who discovered them, simply thought that a beautiful solid chair, must have been a throne, like he knew it from his own days. So; I do think that the authors of Sex of Dawn are doing a great job at re-interpreting results, creating a whole new look at history.

My main critique on Sex at Dawn is how instead of merely studying the origins of human sexuality, the writers have attempted to translate it to modern society. They even manage to make a u-turn at the end of the book. Even though they had gathered all the evidence to make a solid case, they make the same mistake so many writing about sex and relationships have done before them: they defend marriage. Their last chapter is sickeningly sweet, if you want my opinion. Their main defense of marriage consists of mocking serial monogamy based on today's research on the effect of children in broken homes. Well wait a minute; hadn't we established the idea that in the ancient societies children would have been living in entirely different communities? Cared and loved by everyone? So why does marriage suddenly become our savior? Marriage, in it's essence, is an example of the fault of modern society. It is mostly a tool created to ensure paternity. Which according to our biology is against nature's concept. Id say it is where the fight over the "ownership" of our children begins...

Assuming that their historic interpretation is all correct, that doesn't take away the fact that these were times where people were living the primordial lifestyle within a primordial world. When people apparently had very little need for possession and seemed terribly content with it all. But it seems that ever since agricultural society rose 10.000 years ago; it all comes down to possessing. Possessing things. Possessing land. Possessing animals. Competing over it. And wanting ever more, more, MORE! With the ultimate possession being possessing other people. Slavery. Marriage. They're symbols of a need to possess another person's life.

The reason why this happened, as g-dubz also has asked himself, is one that can only be speculated about. There are those who theorize that our hidden fertility and hidden paternity is actually where the need to posses came from. In the old societies not yet understanding the basics of pregnancy, only women had children, as they came out of their bodies. We could think that everyone was very merry about that nonetheless. But it is clear that in every society throughout history childbirth is something special. The need for paternity therefor could have actually been a need to satisfy this "injustice" between the sexes. First step: own the women. It's just one of many theories to the question why people would have fallen into the deathtrap of agricultural societies. Where people started to lead far less healthy lives than they had as hunters and gatherers; becoming sick, short and dieing young. But it seems that whatever the reason why this need arose, the need to possess was the key and has been our primary motivation throughout the next 10.000 years.

Even though this is not a very long time on a biological evolutionary scale, on the scale of cultural evolution it is rather sufficient. For the way the human race has grown out to be the dominant race on this planet instead of living in these small societies, it has been rather sufficient. That way; we changed the world dramatically. And also ourselves. Which is something that can not be underestimated.

The way we live changes the way we are. You could think of all the chemicals our bodies need to process on a daily basis. But even the seemingly harmless act of conceiving a baby through monogamous relationships, is changing our genes. The biology of the sperm wars is much less effective than intended. But what can we do? The authors wisely shy away from mentioning the fact that in today's society there's HIV and STD's. Which would make promoting the revival of sperm competition an act of deliberately starting an epidemic at least. Mass-murder at best. Conveniently a nice way to get a head start on returning the human race back to small societies as we did once live in thousands of years ago. And if we take away the ethics; it would very likely leave us a stronger healthier race than we are today. But we can't do that now, can we? (please note my sarcasm ;))

The history and roots to our sexuality may be clear. As concluded in Sex at Dawn; "sexual practices are to be regarded first as bonding practices" (interestingly; they do not conclude it's pleasure first, but I can live with this statement ;)). And I'd actually like to believe that this is where a desire to share sexuality in a group of men and women comes from. I even think that there are some beautiful people that do. But: I think the way we act in today's society is determined and ruled by far different standards. So when I think of men enjoying having their wives being taken by other men in our modern society, for the majority of them I see it as predominantly an act of possession. With possession comes permission. It's like letting someone play with your toy, just to show them how cool it is you've got it. Exaggerated; "Those few minutes she's yours, but the rest of her life is mine." Not a sexy thought. Not even a nice thought. But a realistic modern thought? I think the answer to that is: yes.

I think Sex at Dawn has made the mistake of translating history towards a view on today that comes closer to an ideology than anything else. It goes against their own intentions stated in the preface. It is like someone got scared while the book was almost finished and they figured they should make some appeasement with the modern world in order to not get lynched for publishing it ;) Which is a shame, since it takes away some credibility of an otherwise amazing book. Nonetheless, as I've said; I loved reading it. It is daring. It is science. And it's written in a delightful way. I would highly recommend for anyone to read it.

RedRoses

Posted: 03 Oct 07:01

I regarded the final chapters of the book as "the authors have no answers as to how we should live now" and given the realities of today's world, I'd have to agree with them. So while we know the current lifestyle (marriage) isn't the best, we also know that "one size does NOT fit all" and therefore hesitate to offer solutions beyond emancipation of women esp regarding women's control over their fertility and personal autonomy. I could hardly disagree with that.

Of course researchers have their baggage which is why we need more and more varied researchers hence the primaary value of Sex at Dawn.

Cuckolding, as is the parlance, is not done by dominant men but by submissive men who wish to be dominated by both their wives and her lovers. The Lifestyle is done by, as you say, beautiful people who truly enjoy sharing, embracing, and rejoicing in their sexuality together. Yes, there are those who share their wives as in 'let you play with my toy'. But all we've said in all of the above is that sexuality comes in great variety.

One point that we need more research on is the apparent gap in the Lifestyle. Youngsters who are not having children participate. Older persons past childbearing participate. But, those couples actively involved in the childbearing process do NOT participate. (Btw I mean on average, generally speaking.) We could think of this as possession, I suppose. But could we not also think of this as assuaging masculine needs for legacy? We talk a lot about women wanting to be mothers but hardly anything is said about men wanting to be fathers. The talk all seems to be "men put up with family to get sex" and i don't think that's entirely true. After all, isn't legacy what patriarchy is all about?

Other research elsewhere indicates that sperm production is somewhat controlled by the subconcious. A husband who has been away for a period of time produces more 'killer' sperm than 'egg seeking' sperm even if his wife has been perfectly monogamous. So sperm competition could still work, hypothetically, even if everyone used condoms and birth control. If true, then the Lifestyle would be a valid choice for those not willing to go all the way to the Musuo system.

Now as to why humans moved from foraging to being pastoralists and then farmers...remember that the foragers moved only when necessary - as in they had worn out that one area. If one looks at the Native Americans before the Europeans came, one sees groups with two different lifestyles based upon the fertility of the region. Where the land was fertile, they lived in more or less settled villages with large hunting areas and grew a little corn etc. Where the land was less fertile they lived in small roving bands within a larger hunting area. These areas were limited by their proximity to other Native American nations.

There are groups called pastoralists that follow their herds over a vast area, aka the Mongols. There are other groups existing now that still practice transhumance moving between two 'towns' or 'areas' according to the season, mainly in Arctic regions. Gradually, they got to the point where the herds moved but the 'town' didn't - aka the Swiss.

My hypothesis is that since moving is such a pain in the ass, even now, that when these peoples reached a fertile area capable of sustaining them for many years, they tended to stay there simply because it was easier. The women dropped seed and lo, agriculture was born.

Thus the limiting factors seems to be 1. fertility of the land and 2. proximity to other groups of humans.

But even those two factors have their details. Consider the ancient Celts who gradually moved west over the centuries by 'splitting'. That is to say when the group got too large for everyone to know everyone else, the youngsters would form up and move a day or two west from the 'parent' group and form a new 'town'.

Trade became important because not all areas were good for all crops. Even the Ice Man found in the Alps was following a trade route. The most ancient, thus far, town in South America had no fortifications, no depictions of war, and no weapons - it was a party city that lived growing cotton, making fishing nets for others and trading not just with the fishing communities on the coast (nets exchanged for fish) but also across the Andes with Amazonian groups.

A group that doesn't travel has increased population for three main reasons: 1. wild animals tend to stay away from humans esp groups of them; 2. less wear and tear on the people themselves since moving is such a pain in the ass and 3. having found 'the good life' why not celebrate with sex resulting in more mouth to feed.

And thus the trap closed.

Not being able to sustain this now larger group they began raiding and warfare, I suppose. There's always one bad apple after all. SIGH.

EvilEvilKitten

Posted: 03 Oct 07:02