Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality in Science and Inquiry

Feb 25, 2012 Lynda rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: sexuality, religion

Sex at Dawn was obviously written for the layman. With over 60 pages of notes detailing the bibliography and depth of the materials referenced and quoted, its aim seems to be to impress upon people who don't know any better that Ryan irrefutably knows what he’s talking about and that he’s right.

This is dangerous for a person like me, who’s no anthropologist or evolutionary biologist or psychologist. Because the book says a lot of things that make sense and that I want to believe. The advent of a Sex at Dawn was obviously written for the layman. With over 60 pages of notes detailing the bibliography and depth of the materials referenced and quoted, its aim seems to be to impress upon people who don't know any better that Ryan irrefutably knows what he’s talking about and that he’s right.

This is dangerous for a person like me, who’s no anthropologist or evolutionary biologist or psychologist. Because the book says a lot of things that make sense and that I want to believe. The advent of agriculture introduces war, pestilence and personal property (of both people and things) onto mankind? That sounds good! It’s nice to blame something, especially something that’s currently under attack in society for a multitude of different reasons, for all the nastiest problems in humanity! But how likely is it, really?

One of the criticisms I keep reading over and over of this book is that Ryan takes a quote from a scientist or author out of context and misshapes it to prove his point. It is evident that he does cherry-pick his citations quite specifically. Though I am unfamiliar with the books and articles of most of the people from whom he takes his material, this is very evident and bothered me throughout my consumption of the book.

I can’t pretend to have any clue how sound this “science” is, but as a complete layman taking a look at the behavior of my fellow human beings, it seems blatantly obvious that we are not monogamous creatures. I’m not exactly sure why any scientist would ever insist this so concretely because I can’t think of any instance in our recorded history where people behaved this way in practice. Monogamy has always been a social construct and an expectation that very few people on this planet can, or want to, adhere.

The subtitle of this book is ”How We Mate, Why We Stray & What It Means for Modern Relationships” however Ryan doesn’t even attempt an application of his theoretical prehistoric notion of promiscuous sex on modern society other than to say kind of stupidly in a rushed fashion in the final chapters, (paraphrased) “Wives, forgive your cheating husbands. They can’t deny their urges!” And then clumsily covers up that by saying by and large women don’t cheat unless they’re emotionally involved with their lovers and unhappy in their marriages. This, after spending a few hundred pages telling us that women and men are more or less evolutionarily designed for more casual sex that doesn’t need to be weighed down by love and commitment. Which is it? Why this sharp turn back to the “standard model” at the very end?

While I enjoyed reading this book as much as a chocoholic enjoys eating a Three Musketeers, similarly, I’m not sure it was a very healthy treat. I’m left, as a layman, wanting to pour through hundreds of scientific works and articles to try to make sense of this theory and feel that journey is going to be much more confusing to me than it’s worth. I can’t believe a word that’s said in this book about prehistory because Ryan’s not qualified and obviously has an agenda in presenting this information to his readers. I’m also skeptical of many scientists who claim monogamy (or worse, marriage) is in our nature and evolution because they also seem to be reading the results to prove their preconceived notions as well.

It’s an interesting theory, one I’d love to believe. The fact that this book makes me think and want to research so much more is a good thing. But I’ll probably be careful to whom I recommend this book because if you’re on board with the idea that people aren’t monogamous by nature, it’d be easy to fall for all this presented information without question: hook, line and sinker. ...more

3 likes · Like · see review