In Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, the authors set about the nearly impossible task of showing the “original” state of human sexual nature, and how our current culture cuts across that grain of this state, making us miserable. There are two main problems with this quest.
First, although the authors state, quite correctly, how varied human sexual arrangements are, both cross-culturally and at various times, they ultimately decide that our hunter gatherer ancestors led free sexual lives, and that is our real sexual “state”. The hunter gatherer social structure prevented monogamy in the modern sense; the paternity of a woman’s child was simply not important. That is why human males appear to evolved to engage in sperm competition. Sex was not exclusively tied to romantic love, but a more elastic act, used to cement the bonds of small groups of people.
Unfortunately, a true original “state” of any human behavior or social arrangement is very difficult to prove. The evidence is purely conjectural. We are pragmatic and fluid creatures; we mold our behavior to social, ecological and political circumstances. Do we really have such a thing as human nature?
Second, the authors do not stay true to their own model. Because of research about the different way men and woman perceive sex outside of a monogamous arrangement, they hold that woman must be accommodating to men in their efforts to provide themselves sexual novelty; they must do this in order to keep families together.
This is an odd ending, given what came before. They destroy the very premise they have built for three fourths of the book. Why? It confounds me.
Truth is we will never know what sex at dawn was like; given what we know about ourselves as a species, it was probably widely variable.
First, although the authors state, quite correctly, how varied human sexual arrangements are, both cross-culturally and at various times, they ultimately decide that our hunter gatherer ancestors led free sexual lives, and that is our real sexual “state”. The hunter gatherer social structure prevented monogamy in the modern sense; the paternity of a woman’s child was simply not important. That is why human males appear to evolved to engage in sperm competition. Sex was not exclusively tied to romantic love, but a more elastic act, used to cement the bonds of small groups of people.
Unfortunately, a true original “state” of any human behavior or social arrangement is very difficult to prove. The evidence is purely conjectural. We are pragmatic and fluid creatures; we mold our behavior to social, ecological and political circumstances. Do we really have such a thing as human nature?
Second, the authors do not stay true to their own model. Because of research about the different way men and woman perceive sex outside of a monogamous arrangement, they hold that woman must be accommodating to men in their efforts to provide themselves sexual novelty; they must do this in order to keep families together.
This is an odd ending, given what came before. They destroy the very premise they have built for three fourths of the book. Why? It confounds me.
Truth is we will never know what sex at dawn was like; given what we know about ourselves as a species, it was probably widely variable.
No comments:
Post a Comment