Christopher Ryan (1)Reseñas

I am merely going to summarize, in a nutshell, the author’s claims, ideas, conclusion etc.
Our civilization is a lie. The good life it supposedly gives us is a lie. Our civilization tells us nature is our enemy and we need to be part of civilization to gain its protection. Civilization made this massive reproduction rate possible. We can now eat ourselves to death . It makes no one happy. Everybody lives in anxiety . The media tries to sell us that we have such a good life. We are happy. What you are not happy? Read this . Watch this. Buy this. What? It is still not working ? Just pop a pill

Perché la fedeltà sessuale a lungo termine è così difficile per molte coppie?
Perché la passione sessuale spesso si affievolisce, anche quando l’amore diventa più profondo?
Perché le donne sono potenzialmente multiorgasmiche, mentre gli uomini fin troppo spesso raggiungono l’orgasmo a una velocità frustrante, per poi perdere interesse?
La gelosia sessuale è un elemento inevitabile e incontrollabile della natura umana?
Perché i testicoli umani sono molto più grandi di quelli dei gorilla ma più piccoli di quelli degli scimpanzé?
La frustrazione sessuale può farci ammalare? Come è potuto accadere che la mancanza di orgasmi abbia causato una delle malattie più comuni della storia, e come è stata trattata?

La narrazione standard – cioè quella secondo la quale l’uomo cerca in una donna fertilità e verginità, mentre la donna cerca stabilità economica e protezione per lə figliə; lui conquista (o lei si lascia conquistare) chi ritiene idonea; lui controlla che lei non gli faccia le corna e lei controlla che lui non si innamori di un’altra – ha provato a dare una risposta a queste domande, ma ha peccato di bias cognitivi (d’altro canto, pensato di essere un ricercatore sposato che vede i dati naturalizzare il fatto che la propria moglie vada a letto con un altro…).

Ryan e Jethá si impegnano a dare una risposta alternativa a quelle domande, cercando di non lasciare fuori niente e stabilendo per prima cosa che la monogamia non è affatto naturale, ma figlia di adattamenti culturali e come tale soggetta ai capricci del cambiamento (non che il resto non cambi, ma lo fa molto più lentamente).

In principio era il sesso intreccia studi relative a varie discipline (dalla psicologia all’archeologia, dall’antropologia all’anatomia) per mostrarci che non dovremmo proprio dare per scontata la monogamia, sia da parte nostra, sia da parte altrui. Dovrebbe essere una delle tante cose da discutere quando si entra in una relazione con qualcunə: dareste mai per scontato il suo gusto di gelato preferito?

L’unico difetto del libro a mio avviso è l’eccessivo focus sull’eterosessualità, soprattutto una volta stabilito che il sesso non ha la riproduzione come scopo principale (ta-dah!): magari mi cercherò un libro più queer sull’argomento (se esiste). Sentitevi liberə di offrire suggerimenti!

2.75

Maybe I am too german but I do not appreciate the flippant tone of the book.

Extremely interesting and entertaining popular science work. Unfortunately the emphasis is on the "popular" as it was written by an English PhD and an MD, and the real experts don't seem so impressed, so I'll knock it down to 3 stars.

This was such a fascinating book, for it being non-fiction i finished it surprisingly quick and I recommend everyone should read this book. Its not dry or boring, I promise!

An interesting take on the history of monogamy in humans, our ancestors and our relatives. The important thing to put aside when reading this one is any preconception of ethics or morality. This is a scientific and historical study of how societies have structured societies in different cultures.

What did I think? What didn't I think. A well researched, it seems, (although I didn't hunt down the copious references) volume on polygamy.

For many the instinctive argument would be obvious by tell tale signs in our every day lives but to have some research unfolded into the specific relationship we have with that is well deserved - although not new, these studies into polygamy before agriculture are not findings that are revelatory to us through this book but it is a relevance that is both systematic and semantic and should be taken further. Moreover we should by now be seeking individual reference points to this material.

The overall colour of the book is to introduce the research in somewhat of a mix between opinion piece and well researched paper, although at times the 'asides' come across as Cosmopolitan Magazine editorial, I would have preferred something dryer than zippy elbows into my chest when observing apparent paradox or irony. I guess though this can be a good thing for those looking for some literary gusto and not subtle wit.

All in all if you are seeking some wisdom into Polygamy or Polyamory this is a worthwhile addition to the bookshelf. The sheer endurance of it should be enough to feast upon, and provide insight otherwise overlooked in all the other alternative sources of information about this topic, refreshing to have it compiled so vigilantly.

One of the most impactful books I've ever read.

Eye-opening look at the socially constructed nature of monogamy, with a bonus takedown of pretty much all received wisdom about the lives of prehistoric humans. Plays a little fast and loose with the "standard narrative" it's trying to disprove, conflating evolutionary goals with individual ones whenever it's convenient, but otherwise feels fairly on point and data-driven. Recommend to anyone who's feeling open-minded.

Chatty (maybe a little too much), popular and data-backed! Really, really interesting book. I wasn't always clear on the conclusions they wanted to make, but it's a great place to start thinking.

Though this book wasn't able to respond to the regular criticism of evolutionary psychology (the big question of "so what?"), it provides a lot of useful information to combat the Hobbesian narrative that dominates assumptions about "human nature."

An exploration of the many ways progress (agriculture, industry, money, technology etc) have perverted the way mankind eats, moves, works, interacts, and dies. Excellently researched and substantiated although his stabs at a way out are feeble (because there is no pleasant way out).

This book is an "Emperor wears no clothes" revelation everyone should read. If we could shift attitudes about our innate sexuality, just think how close to justice we could get in so many other realms. Finally a book that challenges the Political doctrines which disempower the commoner, keeping those with power in control. There is enough. No one has greater value than any other. Love and sharing is better than competition and war. Why do we deny the inherently obvious in our culture?

This review can also be found on my blog.

I've read some of the criticisms of this book, and also recognize that it was published almost a decade ago and may be a bit outdated. Regardless, it's nice to read a book that validates your sexuality and makes you feel more "normal" than society at large might have you believe. As a queer, polyamorous woman I thought this was a really good starting point to learn about human sexuality. I'll certainly be picking up some other works and doing further research, but I found this book to be well-written, humorous, and just what I needed.

It was hard for me to not really love this book. I wanted to. The basic premise, that humans really aren't designed for monogamy and that societal pressures to uphold that system are harmful and generally doomed, is one that I personally agree with in general. But as such, I wanted to see the point defended in a more professional manner.

The tone of the writing really detracted from it's credibility. For example, it was hard to believe that instead of just talking about sexual patterns in patriarchal vs. matriarchal societies in a scientific manner, they write it as propaganda, trying to convince guys that they'll get a lot laid more if they were to live in a matriarchal society. Seriously. I cringed.

Now, to be fair, it did make the book more fun to read at times, which is undoubtedly what the authors were going for. I just think they overdid it. A lot. But one example did make me laugh aloud: in describing why human males' testicles are outside the body, "A scrotum is like a spare refrigerator in the garage just for beer. If you've got a spare beer fridge, you're probably the type who expects a party to break out at any moment. You want to be prepared".

It loses a few further points in my own mind because the end of the book seems to lose focus. It felt like interesting data and anecdotes are all collected in the last couple of chapters but I couldn't tell what the point of them being there was. It could have had a stronger finish by trimming that stuff out.

All in all, I think a lot of excellent points are raised and many accepted beliefs challenged in compelling ways. I hope it is taken seriously enough to generate real discussion and thought amongst those who don't already agree with its conclusions.

Fantastic book. Those who feel threatened by the information in this book aren't actually reading it, they are just reacting to the idea that what they've always believed -- namely, that humans are "naturally" monogamous and that the only healthy sexual relationship for humans is sexual exclusivity between two people -- might not be true.

This book isn't advocating one lifestyle or another, it is simply giving proof to the lie that monogamy is the only way to true happiness.

Excellently written, enjoyable to read, and chock full of data. Highly recommended.

This is absolutely brilliant! We need more like this!

My rating does not reflect my opinion about the topic, but rather how the book was written. For a book about sex and relationships, this was kind of boring. The information was not skillfully modulated so as to not inundate the normal reader. The voice of the author also sounds like kind of a smarty pants, without being able to maintain a sense of authority. After all, you're laying out all the previous scientific(?) research on these topics, so the reader can make his or her own decision on whether they hold or not. You should have reined in the wisecracks now and then.

Bottom line I'm getting: Girls, if your husband strays, don't be so mad. It's natural.

I found this an interesting read, but found the author's sometimes sneering approach to the topic a bit annoying. Also, the further I got into the book the more fringe I realized the author is. He repeatedly overstates claims about how monogamy is not a standard of most societies. Yes, there are a few small, often primitive, indigenous, hunter/gatherer societies that practice systems that do not encourage monogamy, but they are rather few, indeed. Another problem I found was the universally rosy picture the author paints of these hunter/gatherer societies. He makes the claim that that they share everything freely and that violence is almost nonexistent. His main argument supporting this, is that a society which owns nothing has nothing to fight over. Unfortunately, to make such a claim, the author conveniently ignores the common tribal warfare seen in a variety of historical hunter/gatherer societies. They may not have been fighting over land, food or possessions, but they still fought wars and raided neighboring bands, if for no other reason that to show their superiority.

For Ryan to then use all of the above arguments to support his view of the naturalness of promiscuity in humans as a sort of licence to practice open marriage and polyamory seems a bit over the top. Monogamy, or at least polygyny, has been a feature of human societies for at least 10,000 years, and maybe more, so to say that such systems are not well adapted to humans misses quite a bit of support for monogamous systems. Even his physical anthropology reasoning is little better than taking the more controversial side of the argument being waged among primatologists. So, overall, this book leaves much to be desired, and represents a rather fringe view of human sexuality.

By examining physical, cultural, and anthropological data in modern humans, ancient human ancestors, and our closest living primate kin, Ryan presents revolutionary evidence that our prehistoric sexual and relationship dynamic was one involving multiple partners.

One disquieting takeaway is in the chapters speculating upon naturally-occurring violence among primates: it turns out that this supposedly inborn tendency toward violence, observed by anthropologists Goodall and Chagnon, commenced only upon the introduction of food or resources via the researchers themselves! Although somewhat dryly presented at times -- surprising, given the potentially provocative subject matter! -- I have to admit that the argument against instinctive monogamy is fairly convincing. However, if it is true that monogamy is, for humans, entirely a culturally and religiously prescribed practice rather than an innate inclination, where does that leave us? It is one thing to understand or accept the science in one's brain, but what of one's heart? And how to reconcile it with the culture of today?

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2773096.html

There's probably a serious argument to be had about the extent to which monogamy is or is not a basic part of the way we humans interact with each other. Unfortunately only the barest traces of a serious argument are to be found in this book, which combines polemic, sarcasm and condescension to the point that you are clear that the authors think they are right, but can't really have confidence in what they say about anyone else, particularly anyone who thinks that pair-bonding is in any way important beyond the fantasies of the fiendish conspirators who have foisted it on generations of unwilling mates.

A mild strike in their favour is that they are very dismissive of Steven Pinker, who has certainly failed to convince me at all. I was also interested in the evidence presented that men in industrialised societies are producing fewer sperm, though this came at the end of so much straw-manning that I really wasn't sure I could trust it. But in general, it's a great example of how to take the very interesting discussion that one could have about polyamory, and then weaken it through the choice of rhetorical tools.

Прекрасна книга, която ще задоволи напълно любопитството ви по всички интимни въпроси:)

Ще научите много нови и неподозирани отношения в сексуалните връзки. Приликите и разликите в интимен план при човека и при примата.

Ще срещнете куп разтърсващи истории, които се случват и до ден днешен при определени племена и общности.

SEX AT DAWN: Preface
OK, I get the point of this. The preface is trying to make the point that humans are primates, and subject to primate urges. However, this is a DUMB story. Seriously, author? A monkey stealing peanuts you'd meant to give to a different monkey makes you feel 'betrayed in a way you'd never been before'? And inspires 'loathing' for monkeys? Plus, over-the-top anthropomorphization, and your telling me about putting on a 'primate display' for the monkey makes me think you may be a little unbalanced. Maybe not the best way to open the book.

SEX AT DAWN: INTRODUCTION
This covers a lot of stuff very quickly, as it's a quick overview of the topic of the book. There is little evidence for the claims here, but I'll trust that will come later.
*We're apes - fine, ok.
*Our society has sex issues - fine, ok.
*The Spanish word 'esposas' means 'wife' and 'handcuffs'... hmm... this word looks more like 'spouse' than 'wife,' looked it up, yep, I'm right, it can also mean husband. Point taken, though.
*People like porn - yep, true, but does that really mean sexual dysfunction?
*Priests molest kids - yep, true, but is this because of 'denying normal human sexuality' or because predators seek out positions where they have trusted access to kids?
*The self help industry is pathetic and non-helpful - agreed.
*On to the summary of what we'll find in this book - a theory that from existing evidence, we can conclude that pre-agricultural societies were gender-equal and generally promiscuous. I have serious doubts that it is possible to draw such conclusions. It is POSSIBLE, but I do not think it can be proven. We shall see.
*Outline of the typical 'narrative of human sexual evolution.' Yep, heard it before, agree that it's problematic.
*Graph of how agricultural societies lead to war. This graph spells the word "hierarchical" miserably wrong. PROOFREADERS are important!
*More about how agriculture leads to the idea of property, which leads to women losing status, etc. Stuff admittedly cribbed from Jared Diamond. Again, nice theory, not proven, though.
*Good point about: really WHY should men care about paternity?

SEX AT DAWN: Chapter 1, a.
Starts out with the old chestnut about an explorer asking the native "what's that?" and ending up thinking that "I don't understand" is a noun. I've most often heard this about "kangaroo" but the word in question here is "Yucatan." If you go to the 'notes' the author admits that this story is anecdotal - but he uses it anyway. It would have been more effective (not to mention more respectable) to talk ABOUT this story and why it flourishes in different versions... Cecil Adams explains in detail. (I LOVE Cecil Adams): (start w/ 4th paragraph) http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/491/whats-the-origin-of-kangaroo-court

SEX AT DAWN: Chapter 1, b.
A page or two to convince us that food preferences are cultural, and people in one country may eat things that people in another think are gross. This seems very obvious, and a waste of breath - except that Elizabeth & I were recently discussing a post where someone was using others' food habits to demonstrate racism; and then of course there's the whole "Did Obama eat a dog" thing, so maybe this actually IS a valuable point to make to a large segment of the population.
I'm still stuck in my own culture - I'll pass on the grasshoppers! The references in this bit led me to this out-of-date but interesting blog: http://bugsfordinner.blogspot.com/

SEX AT DAWN: Chapter 1, c.
"An essential first step in discerning the 'cultural' from the 'human' is what mythologist Joseph Campbell called 'detribalization.' We have to recognize the various tribes we belong to and begin extricating ourselves from the unexamined assumptions each of them mistakes for 'the truth.'"
Nice quote. I agree. I know Campbell is frequently considered outdated, and in his search for universals, he was often far TOO reductionist about human mythology. He also grabbed things that were convenient to his narratives and ignored what didn't fit... but I still like him, overall. Interesting stuff.

Goes on to say that the commonly-accepted tropes about sexual jealously, etc, are not necessarily natural, but cultural - that evolutionary psychologists are wrong. I feel like that's probably the main focus of this book - the theories of Evo. Psych. are NOT NECESSARILY true. I think that is correct - the evo. psych crowd CANNOT determine that human have always been monogamous/jealous/etc. But I still don't think this book can determine the opposite, either. Still, I suppose it's necessary and valuable to point out that one can look at the same set of data, can draw different conclusions or create a different narrative.

SEX AT DAWN - Chapter 2a
Darwin was influenced in his thought by the prudery of Victorian times, and the religious bias of those who came before him, not to mention his own sexual inexperience. The writing of Darwin were, additionally, censored by his prudey sister.
Therefore our first concepts of human evolution were subject to an anti-sex bias.

SEX AT DAWN: Chapter 2, b.
"the deepest function of myth... to lend narrative order to apparently disconnected bits of information, the way constellations group impossibly distant stars into ... patterns that are simultaneously imaginary and real."

Ok, that is lovely.
I've probably never mentioned it here, but I am a huge fan of mythology and mythopoeic fiction; and how they connect to culture and history.

The book goes on to say, "mythology is the loom on which we weave... daily experience into a coherent story. This... becomes tricky when we mythologize about ... ancestors separated from us by 20 or 30,000 years... (there's a) widespread tendency to project contemporary cultural proclivities into the distant past."

YES. Historical fiction writers talk about this A LOT, although usually not on such a grand time frame.
But I'm really glad this book is admitting this problem. We'll see where they go from here...

SEX AT DAWN, Chap. 2, c.
Stuff about Lewis Morgan, a contemporary of Darwin and an anthropoligist. Never read much about this guy, but what a fascinating character!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_H._Morgan

SEX AT DAWN: Chapter 3
Here the author's go into more detail on the assumption of current evolutionary theory that they believe are erroneous, including:
#1 - women aren't actually very horny
#2 - men are motivated to only care for their own children.
Their arguments for this second one are pretty convincing - as they point out, the arguments inherent in this are very questionable:
especially: early humans understood that sex led to children, and were certain which children were biologically his. (It's known that even recently, some 'primitive' cultures did not understand this).

There's a lot more here but it also points out that evolutionary theory concentrates ONLY on sexual relations as a method of producing children, as if this were the only function of human sexuality - which, as any psychologist can tell you, it certainly isn't.

The chapter also points out that no, not all human cultures have centered around 'marriage and the nuclear family,'and that in early societies, which centered around shared resources, the whole sex-as-barter concept does not apply. (The idea that women allow a man sexual access in exchange for his material resources.) The author clearly find this reduction of all human sexuality down to - essentially - acts of prostitution - offensive.

SEX AT DAWN - Chapter 4.

Finally, the bonobos make an appearance!
Starts off with a quote from Stephen Jay Gould about how it's peculiar that we insist on comparing 'nasty' animal and human traits, but not making the same comparison for 'noble' traits.

It then talks about how there's a history of comparing human behavior to chimp behavior. Interestingly, it mentions how some of the characterization of chimps as violent and aggressive is also inaccurate (much was based on captive chimps; and their behavior, it is pointed out, differs from behavior in the wild as much as the behavior of jailed humans and free humans.)
However, the authors are somehow not as critical of the research done on bonobos, and ignore the fact that (much like chimps) bonobos have also been observed acting in aggressive and violent ways.
I don't think this invalidates the author's theory that we can compare ourselves to bonobos, as humans also, obviously, DO act aggressively and violently, but I do feel like the authors are oversimplifying to make a point here, and the point suffers for it.

However, there are some very valid points here about the insistence on seeing animal cultures as a reflection of human. For example, the concept of "rank" and "hierarchy" in animal societies - it's noted that status can come from affection or seniority, rather than a 'rank' system.

Also, that primatologists have insisted on describing different groups of apes as 'enemy' groups, when in fact when the groups meet, socializing and sex occur - not what one would expect if they are 'enemies.'

Interesting note about how both humans and bonobos, UNLIKE other apes, have a genetic mutation related to oxytocin, and by inference, emotional bonding.

And, a reiteration of the books main point: "Modern man's seemingly instinctual impulse to control women's sexuality is not an intrinsic feature of human nature. It is a response to specific historical socioeconomic conditions - conditions very different from those in which our species evolved."

Sex At Dawn: Chap. 5

Starts off with an interpretation of the Adam and Eve story as an allegory about humans moving from a foraging to an agricultural lifestyle. The authors express befuddlement as to why anyone would move from such an Edenic lifestyle to one of toil. It seems rather willfully naive. Foraging may be Edenic, temporarily, in times and places of plenty, but not all places are full of food. The foraging lifestyle requires frequent, nomadic travel. Not so good for those who aren't hale and fit. For me, it's very easy to see why people wanted to be able to settle and make a home, to try to wrest some predictability from an unpredictable world.
However, the authors clearly state they they regard the move to agriculture as a 'fall from grace.' I see it as a trade-off, yes... but one that most people have seen as worth it.

Next: very interesting (and true) idea about how humans have domesticated themselves, as much as any crop or farm animal: 'our cultures domesticate us for obscure purposes, nurturing and encouraging certain aspects of our behavior... seeking to eliminate those that might be disruptive."

Next: the author claim that, in the animal kingdom, humans are both uniquely social and uniquely sexual. While I see their point, I do think they exaggerate both. And no, 'exile' has not usually been considered the 'worst' punishment one can decree - hello, torture and death? Check out a list of historical punishments sometime.

Last: the authors promise to make the case that prehistorical human life was 'far from solitary.' OK, I never thought it was. However, I do think that the degree of privacy/community/social interaction that an individual expects is not an innate thing, but one of those 'culturally pruned' aspects of society mentioned at the beginning of this very chapter.

SEX AT DAWN: Chap. 6

This chapter explores in more depth the fallacy of the assumption that sexual exclusivity is required because women need the protection and provision of a man, who will only cleave to a woman if he is sure that her children are his.

The authors bring up the examples of many, many tribes who have traditionally believed that ALL men a women has sex with contribute to the paternity of a child (and even that, the more men a woman has sex with, the stronger and healthier a child will be).
They point out that in cases where a child is considered to have more than one father, the child benefits, because that child has multiple people looking out for his or her well-being. (After all, in small tribal groups, the likelihood is that to some degree, the children ARE actually related to all of the adults in the group.)

In a small tribal group, where monogamy is not the rule, and having multiple lovers is not considered to be a cause for jealousy, but rather, something to be expected, having multiple bonds of affection helps draw the group closer together.
If women are free to have sex when and with whom they choose, this eliminates conflict & competition between males for female companionship.
The authors point out that the egalitarianism of small groups, where resources (and, often, sexuality) are shared, is not somehow more 'noble,' but, rather, is the most efficient way for a small group to survive. Again, showing that monogamy is not always the cultural norm, the authors mention that the Matis tribe of South America (they're pretty much nearly wiped out now, which the book doesn't mention) actually have a word that translates to "being stingy with one's genitals" - a cultural transgression. (Kinda the opposite of calling someone a "slut!")

The authors also mention that if we look at sexuality not solely as a means of reproduction, but as a mechanism for consolidating enduring bonds of affection and caring between multiple individuals in a group, homosexuality no longer appears like a functionless aberration, but rather as just another way to demonstrate mutual bonds.

However, the authors then try to make a jump to compare the sexual egalitarianism of tribes to examples such as rock bands or soccer teams that happily share the sexual favors of groupies. I'm not at all sure that this analogy works.

This is probably coming up later in the book, but it seems clear to me at this point that this egalitarian model of sharing (both sex and resources) with multiple members of a group, through multiple, enduring bonds of affection works very well IF you are in a tribe - a fairly small group who all share close bonds.
It wouldn't work so well in a larger group (say a town or city) where not all your neighbors are people you know intimately, whose well-being and survival is chained inextricably to yours.
A change from it being acceptable and expected to have sex with multiple people in your tribe probably occurred when people started having a larger social group, and the "social unit" switched from "tribe" to "family."
Huh, This would also explain the weirdness of traditions such as that in Afghanistan where a woman is expected to marry only within her family (usually an uncle or first cousin), and marrying a non-related man is considered to be wrong and threatening (a non-family member is not trusted). It's like the tradition has only half-switched over...

SEX AT DAWN - Chapter 7.
While the last chapter was all about how other cultures have often had a more non-specific view of paternity, this chapter moves on to how mothering has often been less specific as well, with examples about how, in small tribes, maternal duties are shared amongst all the women.
It also points out how, in cultures that have insisted on seeing the nuclear family as the only acceptable family unit, horrible dysfunctions often occur. They bring up a horrible statistic that I had to check: it's true. In 1915, out of ten 'foundling hospitals' visited, in NINE of them, EVERY child died before the age of two. Makes it sound like Little Orphan Annie had it good! Meanwhile, the unwed mothers of these infants would hire out as wet-nurses to other womens' children. Hardly the ideal vision of the nuclear family, I agree.

This chapter segues right along into CHAPTER 8
The main point here is that it's been claimed that "marriage" exists in every society around the world because, well, we've taken a look at whatever arrangements exist in whatever culture, and we call that "marriage," ignoring how their arrangements may actually differ quite a lot from what we think of as "marriage" - there's no definition of the word. The authors agree that yes, people around the world do 'pair-bond.' But whether a bond is supposed to be permanent, temporary, or brief, whether that bond overlaps with other long-term sexual relationships, whether sexual activity is allowed or expected outside the bond: not at all, all the time, only during festivals, only with strangers, only with tribe members...? this varies, and varies quite a lot. Most of the chapter is composed of details about the "marriages" found in other cultures, and it's quite interesting.

CHAPTER 9
The first half of the chapter is all about Matriarchies. It talks about different cultures that have encouraged female sexual permissiveness, and talks a lot about the Masuo; whom I’ve read about before. In traditional Masuo culture, the family is the essential unit of society – but the family who lives in a shared house are brothers and sisters, and the children of the women. Men go to women’s homes for sex and romance, but never live with their lovers. Men’s fatherly duties are to their sisters’ children.

The authors that assert that in a matriarchal society, men have it better than in a patriarchal one, because women don’t have a tendency to form the mirror image of a patriarchy and oppress men – matriarchies tend to be more relaxed and easygoing. Sounds nice, but the evidence presented is a bit scant for that assertion.

The second half of the chapter is about animal species which are erroneously considered to behave monogamously. Penguins are brought up (they engage in serial monogamy, sticking with one partner annually to raise chicks), as well as swans (they mention that at least 20% of chicks born to supposedly monogamous birds are not the offspring of that pair).

I’m not at all sure why these two segments are jammed together into one chapter, but there you are.

CHAPTER 10
The topic is jealousy.
“In a traditional Canela marriage ceremony… the brother of each partner’s mother comes forward. He admonishes the bride and her new husband to stay together until the last child is grown, specifically reminding them not to be jealous of each other’s lovers.”
I like it!
Here, the authors argue that jealousy is largely a socially-constructed emotion, pointing out that degrees of sexual jealousy differ from society to society, not to mention exactly what behavior elicits jealousy. They make a very valid point that the results of many studies that we hear bandied about a lot, (saying that men are concerned with sexual infidelity and women are concerned with emotional infidelity) are fundamentally flawed, because their respondents were all Western college students – hardly a wide representation of the many ages and cultures of humanity. Good point.
It then moves on (again, and awkward transition) to talking about how Western pop culture views of ideal love are flawed, bringing up as examples the notorious stalker-song “Every Breath you Take “ (The Police), and “When a Man Loves A Woman,” which they amusingly propose should be retitled “When A Man becomes Pathologically Obsessed and Sacrifices All Self Respect and Dignity by Making a Complete Ass of Himself (and Losing the Woman Anyway, Because, Really, Who Wants A Boyfriend Who Sleeps Out In The Rain Because Someone Told Him To?)”
They then go on to point out Richard Dawkins’ idea that there’s no reason that sexual love should necessarily be exclusive, since we don’t expect any other sort of love or affection to be exclusive. All good.

ILLUMINATING

As somebody who has a great interest in evolutionary theory, I found this book fascinating. The ideas the author presents and the evidence that is presented in support are definately worth a read. It gave me new insights and perspectives on how human relationships have evolved through time and what the prehistoric origins were. The explanations offered for infidelity are interesting and offers fresh perspective on an already highly discussed and debated subject.

It definitely didn't disappoint. I would higly recommend it for anybody interested in evolutionary theory of sex and relationships.