Sex at Dawn

[Kittyscave]

Hi everyone!

Recently I read a fantastic book called Sex at Dawn about the evolution of sexual behavior at the many ways in which it is at odds with our current social mores and culture. In fact, I found it addressed, quite well, many of the fantasies I've experienced and read about on Lit.

It's made me feel a bit more zen, although not particularly optimistic. I wondered if anyone else had read it and wished to discuss.

Thanks. Have a wonderful weekend, sexy people!!
Kitty

 

[Privates1stClass]

Haven't read the book, but sex at any time of day suits me.

 

[Cthulhu1138]

I read it when it first came out.

The notion that commodification of resources--especially sex--is what allowed our modern society to thrive is both daunting and a bit depressing.

The authors make some valid points about how human sexuality hasn't been able to keep pace with our technology or our societal constructs.

Presents a strong argument for polyamory and for everyone being more laid back about sex, which I think would be a great thing.

 

[Kittyscave]

I read it when it first came out.

The notion that commodification of resources--especially sex--is what allowed our modern society to thrive is both daunting and a bit depressing.

The authors make some valid points about how human sexuality hasn't been able to keep pace with our technology or our societal constructs.

Presents a strong argument for polyamory and for everyone being more laid back about sex, which I think would be a great thing.

Thanks for posting. I have no one else to talk to about this book and I found it fascinating.

In particular the parts arguing that we are really not that different from bonobos which live in small, open, non-monogamous societies. Also, taking a mate while on birth control pills is essentially like picking out a good piece of fish in China while your nose is all stuffed up. You make your decision based on reasonable assumptions - looks good, no flies on it... but once a woman goes off the pill her natural hormones and inclinations resurface and a different decision making process enters. Then the fish is no longer as acceptable as it once was. I think this explains a great deal of the variance we see in changing female libido and fantasies.

Third, monogamy + time = monotamy. In other words, we are programmed evolutionarily for novel stimulation in sex and most other ways. We are not intended to be monogamous, and certainly not for long stretches of time.

Sperm competition driving sexual relations, not knowing who the father is so all males love all the children, communal living in groups of under 150 people - this is how we are programmed and our modern world is not set up to address our genetic sexual proclivities, which, again, IMHO addresses much of what we see on Lit.

For instance, when someone asks in Lit, "why do good girls want to be gang banged?" it's obvious looking at our evolution - women want the sperm from as many men as possible so her body can find the match that is most compatible with her constitution. It's sad that society does such a number on our heads - especially women.

Finally, I liked the part about how in hunter gatherer tribes, even modern ones, withholding goods and resources, including one's body is consider the pinnacle of greediness and selfishness. It's just not how we are supposed to live. But, then again, almost everything about our modern lifestyles are in discord with our evolution.

 

[bear175]

I much prefer sex WITH Dawn.

 

[srgreene]

In particular the parts arguing that we are really not that different from bonobos which live in small, open, non-monogamous societies. Also, taking a mate while on birth control pills is essentially like picking out a good piece of fish in China while your nose is all stuffed up. You make your decision based on reasonable assumptions - looks good, no flies on it... but once a woman goes off the pill her natural hormones and inclinations resurface and a different decision making process enters. Then the fish is no longer as acceptable as it once was. I think this explains a great deal of the variance we see in changing female libido and fantasies.

Third, monogamy + time = monotamy. In other words, we are programmed evolutionarily for novel stimulation in sex and most other ways. We are not intended to be monogamous, and certainly not for long stretches of time.

For instance, when someone asks in Lit, "why do good girls want to be gang banged?" it's obvious looking at our evolution - women want the sperm from as many men as possible so her body can find the match that is most compatible with her constitution. It's sad that society does such a number on our heads - especially women.

Finally, I liked the part about how in hunter gatherer tribes, even modern ones, withholding goods and resources, including one's body is consider the pinnacle of greediness and selfishness. It's just not how we are supposed to live. But, then again, almost everything about our modern lifestyles are in discord with our evolution.

Heard of the book, but never read it. I realized when I was quite young that part of me appreciated variety in maleness- now in my sixties, I agree that monogamy + time = monotony. And, frankly, it doesn't take that long a time period. I do wonder about that business of our bodies finding the best match for our constitutions- can you speak about how that plays out?

I don't doubt there is competition in the vaginal tract, but you have to be careful about extrapolating from bonobos (liberals favorite ape) to humans. Among chimps/bonobos, she has a brief period of receptivity about every three years during which she is available to all the males in the troop. I think bonobos are the only species other than our own to enjoy oral sex, which she will do when she's not fertile. BTW, early researchers of bonobos got a lot wrong- while not as quick to battle as chimps, they will fight, and finding a female to spread 'em doesn't always stop aggression.

Our monthly cycles are, to the best of my knowledge unique- so we are receptive more or less any time. Chimps and bonobo males have much greater sperm motility than men do- men are closer to gorillas, which, furtive quickies aside, are at least semi-monogamous, with the dominant silverback getting most of the action from his harem. Does the book address sperm motility as an indicator of promiscuity?

Jane Goodall describes mechanisms by which low ranking males sometimes get the jump on higher ranking males as a chimpanzee comes into estrous- he may be more attentive to the signs, grunting sweet nothings in her ear at just the right moment to head off the competition.

It would be interesting to know when the expectation of monogamy became rooted in human societies.
Somehow, I imagine that when they returned from hunts, Grog and Gorb got into fights over that hot babe, whereas with chimps, once the pecking order is set, they males know their place in line. She, by the way, is accommodating- but her body also prepares itself for a big f-fest much better than we do on a monthly basis. Nevertheless, I think a lot more women would enjoy being the subject of attention of a group of men in a single session then actually have that experience in life.

 

[Kittyscave]

Heard of the book, but never read it. I realized when I was quite young that part of me appreciated variety in maleness- now in my sixties, I agree that monogamy + time = monotony. And, frankly, it doesn't take that long a time period. I do wonder about that business of our bodies finding the best match for our constitutions- can you speak about how that plays out?

I don't doubt there is competition in the vaginal tract, but you have to be careful about extrapolating from bonobos (liberals favorite ape) to humans. Among chimps/bonobos, she has a brief period of receptivity about every three years when she is available to all the males in the troop. I think bonobos are the only species other than our own to enjoy oral sex, which she will do when she's not fertile. BTW, early researchers of bonobos got a lot wrong- while not as quick to battle as chimps, they will fight, and finding a female to spread 'em doesn't always stop aggression.

Our monthly cycles are, to the best of my knowledge unique- so we are receptive more or less any time. Chimps and bonobo males have much greater sperm motility than men do- men are closer to gorillas, which, furtive quickies aside, are at least semi-monogamous, with the dominant silverback getting most of the action from his harem. Does the book address sperm motility as an indicator of promiscuity?

Jane Goodall describes mechanisms by which low ranking males sometimes get the jump on higher ranking males as a chimpanzee comes into estrous- he may be more attentive to the signs, grunting sweet nothings in her ear at just the right moment to head off the competition.

It would be interesting to know when the expectation of monogamy became rooted in human societies.
Somehow, I imagine that when they returned from hunts, Grog and Gorb got into fights over that hot babe, whereas with chimps, once the pecking order is set, they males know their place in line. She, by the way, is accommodating- but her body also prepares itself for a big f-fest much better than we do on a monthly basis. Nevertheless, I think a lot more women would enjoy being the subject of attention of a group of men in a single session then actually have that experience in life.

Unfortunately, I left the book at my office, but I'll test my powers of recollection...

With regard to sperm competition and finding the best match for our constitution:
Monogamy means only having one source of sperm. That sperm may be flawed, may not be a good genetic match for us (low motility, two recessive genes creating disorders, etc.). Through quirks of our anatomy, having sex with multiple partners allows our bodies to select out those sperm with the strongest genetic capabilities - both in matching with our genetics, and also with regard to how they stand-alone. The alpha male may not necessarily possess the strongest sperm or the best genetic match.

There is also significant review of anatomical similarities and difference between humans and bonobos, along with critique of previous research. This does include seminal fluid output and volume.

I've always loved Jane Goodall's work, but she did engage in several practices in an effort to gain the trust of the chimps that disrupted their natural inclinations. For instance, rather than allowing them to forage as they normally would with an innate appreciation of a wealth of resources, she used bananas to entice them to interact. The use of such a "treat" disrupted the balance of abundance vs scarcity and provoked behavior not typically noted in chimps.

The expectation of monogamy apparently developed, according to the authors, out of a similar principle involving a change from an abundance mentality to a scarcity mentality during the emergence of agriculture and when we began living in groups of over 150 individuals. Toss religion into the mix, stew for a few years and you have the fucked up social sexual culture we have today.

 

[Sarahduk]

Unfortunately, I left the book at my office, but I'll test my powers of recollection...

With regard to sperm competition and finding the best match for our constitution:
Monogamy means only having one source of sperm. That sperm may be flawed, may not be a good genetic match for us (low motility, two recessive genes creating disorders, etc.). Through quirks of our anatomy, having sex with multiple partners allows our bodies to select out those sperm with the strongest genetic capabilities - both in matching with our genetics, and also with regard to how they stand-alone. The alpha male may not necessarily possess the strongest sperm or the best genetic match.

There is also significant review of anatomical similarities and difference between humans and bonobos, along with critique of previous research. This does include seminal fluid output and volume.

I've always loved Jane Goodall's work, but she did engage in several practices in an effort to gain the trust of the chimps that disrupted their natural inclinations. For instance, rather than allowing them to forage as they normally would with an innate appreciation of a wealth of resources, she used bananas to entice them to interact. The use of such a "treat" disrupted the balance of abundance vs scarcity and provoked behavior not typically noted in chimps.

The expectation of monogamy apparently developed, according to the authors, out of a similar principle involving a change from an abundance mentality to a scarcity mentality during the emergence of agriculture and when we began living in groups of over 150 individuals. Toss religion into the mix, stew for a few years and you have the fucked up social sexual culture we have today.

Fascinating and I'll have to read the book. I'm in a monogamous + time relationship and yes it's become monotonous in the sexual sense. But if there are things in our genetic make up that explain my feelings desires and fantasies it would be good to understand why I'm feeling as I am. A lot of what I've read on this thread makes perfect sense to me and explains a lot .

 

[srgreene]

There is also significant review of anatomical similarities and difference between humans and bonobos, along with critique of previous research. This does include seminal fluid output and volume.

I've always loved Jane Goodall's work, but she did engage in several practices in an effort to gain the trust of the chimps that disrupted their natural inclinations. For instance, rather than allowing them to forage as they normally would with an innate appreciation of a wealth of resources, she used bananas to entice them to interact. The use of such a "treat" disrupted the balance of abundance vs scarcity and provoked behavior not typically noted in chimps.

She used bananas early in her studies at Gombe, but I was under the impression she realized that was a mistake and took steps to rectify it. I think in more recent studies have, researchers have been much more guarded in their interactions with the chimps.

And the wars of extermination between chimpanzees witnessed at Gombe suggest we are not the only species with fubar'd social interactions.

I just cannot resist relaying a comic I saw about Jane some years ago. A female chimp is grooming a male who has a woebegone countenance while has a disgusted look on her face. She exclaims, "Tch, another blond hair. Doing a little 'research' with that Jane Goodall tramp?"

In any case, given that sperm motility in humans is somewhere between that of chimps and the more-or-less monogamous gorillas suggests our natural behavior may lie somewhere between the two.

 

[Kittyscave]

Fascinating and I'll have to read the book. I'm in a monogamous + time relationship and yes it's become monotonous in the sexual sense. But if there are things in our genetic make up that explain my feelings desires and fantasies it would be good to understand why I'm feeling as I am. A lot of what I've read on this thread makes perfect sense to me and explains a lot .

It did certainly provide a measure of validation for me. I hope you will find the same.

 

[literot]

Fascinating and I'll have to read the book. I'm in a monogamous + time relationship and yes it's become monotonous in the sexual sense. But if there are things in our genetic make up that explain my feelings desires and fantasies it would be good to understand why I'm feeling as I am. A lot of what I've read on this thread makes perfect sense to me and explains a lot .

The problem is that even if feeling as we do can be explained by the breeding imperative, does it give us an excuse for infidelity given the society we do actually live in? "Sorry darling, I was only unfaithful because of Darwin" is unlikely to get a response of "ah well, that's ok then".

It's a real dilemma and so many of us have urges that cannot be fulfilled if we feel that the loss of what else we have would be too great a sacrifice.

I wish it were simpler ... believe me, I do!

 

[Green_Knight]

The joy of writing about the prehistoric is that you can write the most absolute tosh and no-one can ever produce the evidence to gainsay it. At best critics can only say that it's rubbish. But, equally, you need to treat unprovable theories with a very large pinch of salt and not just leap upon them because their conclusions are what you'd like to hear. Sex at Dawn was rejected for publication by the Oxford University Press after failing its peer review process.

It is all very well extrapolating the behaviours of apes onto our own but there is one vital difference. One strand of prehistoric 'man' evolved into homo sapiens whereas the prehistoric ancestors of bonobos evolved into... bonobos. Whatever the similarities, the two are very different. It is, of course, equally possible to argue that, way back, the tendency towards monogamy/polygamy may have been precisely what made the two groups evolve into different species.

Given how environment affects behaviour it is extremely difficult to define what is 'natural behaviour'. If early hunter-gather societies were indeed polygamous - and there is no positive evidence as to whether they were or weren't - this could have been simply a response to that environment. The other problem is of course, as others have pointed out, is that the pure act of studying someone's/something's behaviour is likely to alter it.

 

[Kittyscave]

All excellent points. I truly appreciate the discussion and am pleased to find additional food for thought here.



K

 

[suckonsimon]

Thanks, Kittyscave, for hosting such an interesting thread. I don't know the book until today and it appeals.

A question meanwhile. My wife and I have just celebrated our fortieth. We've had just each other. We have that a lot, and still. It has never felt like 'more of the same' for us. Does the author suggest anything about some degree of evolution into monogamy in loving relationship such that it can actually work and be fulfilling for contemporary humans?

 

[Kittyscave]

Thanks, Kittyscave, for hosting such an interesting thread. I don't know the book until today and it appeals.

A question meanwhile. My wife and I have just celebrated our fortieth. We've had just each other. We have that a lot, and still. It has never felt like 'more of the same' for us. Does the author suggest anything about some degree of evolution into monogamy in loving relationship such that it can actually work and be fulfilling for contemporary humans?

Hmmm... an interesting query, Simon.

No, I don' recall a discussion along those lines. I might speculate, however, that the authors would suggest that you and the Mrs. have accommodated successfully to the cultural and societal demands. Perhaps an evolutionary step in accord with being one of "the fittest".

I am curious, however, how you would construe your time on Lit. Do the discussions and pics, etc. enhance your relationship with your wife?

 

[suckonsimon]

... I am curious, however, how you would construe your time on Lit. Do the discussions and pics, etc. enhance your relationship with your wife?

Perceptive question! I came to Lit during a tough time when my wife was in depression and among the many woes of those two years was sex on hold for 18 months. All thankfully over. During that time Lit was a distraction and consolation for me. As soon as I judged she was recovered enough for me to tell her about Lit, I did. It is not her thing at all. Yet she likes very much the classy erotic photos I download from here and share with her, and she appreciates that alongside the flirting and banter I get up to, I have ongoing discussions with folk - and a lot of men - about herbal enhancement, cockrings, and doing well as a lover. No question that this has enabled me into some greater imagination and confidence as a lover myself and she would agree.

 

[Green_Knight]

Thanks, Kittyscave, for hosting such an interesting thread. I don't know the book until today and it appeals.

A question meanwhile. My wife and I have just celebrated our fortieth. We've had just each other. We have that a lot, and still. It has never felt like 'more of the same' for us. Does the author suggest anything about some degree of evolution into monogamy in loving relationship such that it can actually work and be fulfilling for contemporary humans?

Suckonsimon: the book's explanation for your twisted monogamous behaviour is that "couples who manage to stay together for the long haul have done so by resigning themselves to sacrificing their eroticism on the altar of three of life’s irreplaceable joys: family stability, companionship, and emotional, if not sexual, intimacy." The authors ask if "those who innocently aspire to these joys are cursed by nature to preside over the slow strangulation of their partner’s libido?" So there you are.

The book's central posit - hypothesis or theory are words too weak to sum up its approach - is that human beings are naturally polygamous and it sets out to prove this. Unfortunately, this is not a good approach to take. Countless miscarriages of justice have occurred when police have adopted this approach - decide that someone's guilty and then 'prove' the case by ignoring any evidence that does not fit. That is one of the central criticisms of the book - that it cherry-picks the evidence to support its contention.

This approach starts in the opening pages of the introduction when it tells us to "Forget what you’ve heard about human beings having descended from the apes. We didn’t descend from apes. We are apes. Metaphorically and factually, Homo sapiens is one of the five surviving species of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. We shared a common ancestor with two of these apes - bonobos and chimps - just five million years ago." It then goes on to say that, like bonobos and chimps, we are the randy descendants of hypersexual ancestors. This, of course, is overlaying undoubted fact with a veneer of unsupportable hypothesising - no evidence is offered for its claim that our shared ancestors were randy hypersexuals. To conjure up visions of our hunter-gather ancestors indulging in wild swinging parties while a forebear of the modern tiger eyed them up from the surrounding undergrowth is misleading.

And there is one distinct point that it misses - we are not bonobos or chimps. We have evolved differently and there is nothing to say that our different evolution may not be based on diverging sexuality. The book heavily depends on what it sees as parallels between humans and bonobos. However, there are huge differences between the behaviour of common chimpanzees and bonobos, which only separated from each other less than one million years ago. How much greater, then, the differences between humans and chimps/bonobos which species separated six to seven million years ago.

Of course, no-one alive today was around all those thousands if not millions of years ago to witness prehistoric life social behaviour. The book contests claims that, because of this, its ideas can only be wild speculation. It quotes the story of a man accused of biting off another's finger. At his trial an eye-witness was asked if he had actually witnessed the event. When he admitted that he hadn't, he was asked how he could claim that the accused had bitten off the man’s finger?” “Well,” replied the witness, “I saw him spit it out.” This is a particularly silly parallel to draw and, rather than justifying the book's approach, it demonstrates the potential pitfalls. Evidence of the accused spitting out the severed finger is not evidence of him biting it off - he may have found the severed finger and put it in his mouth to keep it safe and warm in the hope that it could later be stitched back on, only to spit it out because it made him feel sick. That alternative possibility may be unlikely but it cannot be dismissed.

The introduction - we haven't even got into the meat of the book yet - goes on to blame most of society's sexual ills on conventional notions of monogamous, till-death-do-us-part marriage and concludes that "seismic cultural shifts about ten thousand years ago rendered the true story of human sexuality so subversive and threatening that for centuries it has been silenced by religious authorities, pathologized by physicians, studiously ignored by scientists, and covered up by moralizing therapists." In other words, our natural state is polygamous and this has been suppressed. This does, of course, pre-suppose that nine thousand years ago there were religious authorities, physicians, scientists and moralising therapists busy suppressing natural human sexuality, otherwise why did the seismic cultural shifts take hold?

I kept wanting to give the authors a fair hearing but every time I came up against yet another unsupportable contention or blithe dismissal of contrary evidence, that became more and more difficult. I found myself reminded of works and ideas such as Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods, Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, and David Icke's conspiracy theories that many prominent figures belong to the Babylonian Brotherhood, a group of shapeshifting reptilian humanoids who are propelling humanity toward a global fascist state or New World Order. Great for a laugh and good entertainment but for goodness' sake don't take them seriously. I can see why Dawn of Sex failed the peer review process although, to be fair, it may have been rewritten subsequently in a popular style to salvage something from the train wreck of its rejection.

 

[7LivesManyFaces]

Thanks for posting. I have no one else to talk to about this book and I found it fascinating.

In particular the parts arguing that we are really not that different from bonobos which live in small, open, non-monogamous societies. Also, taking a mate while on birth control pills is essentially like picking out a good piece of fish in China while your nose is all stuffed up. You make your decision based on reasonable assumptions - looks good, no flies on it... but once a woman goes off the pill her natural hormones and inclinations resurface and a different decision making process enters. Then the fish is no longer as acceptable as it once was. I think this explains a great deal of the variance we see in changing female libido and fantasies.

Third, monogamy + time = monotamy. In other words, we are programmed evolutionarily for novel stimulation in sex and most other ways. We are not intended to be monogamous, and certainly not for long stretches of time.

Sperm competition driving sexual relations, not knowing who the father is so all males love all the children, communal living in groups of under 150 people - this is how we are programmed and our modern world is not set up to address our genetic sexual proclivities, which, again, IMHO addresses much of what we see on Lit.

For instance, when someone asks in Lit, "why do good girls want to be gang banged?" it's obvious looking at our evolution - women want the sperm from as many men as possible so her body can find the match that is most compatible with her constitution. It's sad that society does such a number on our heads - especially women.

Finally, I liked the part about how in hunter gatherer tribes, even modern ones, withholding goods and resources, including one's body is consider the pinnacle of greediness and selfishness. It's just not how we are supposed to live. But, then again, almost everything about our modern lifestyles are in discord with our evolution.

Seems like an Interesting read but way off. I have not read the book but feel compelled to put in my 2 cents nonetheless.

How does our current social dynamic conflict with our evolution? Proposing that we are meant to have multiple sex partners just so that the best specimen can claim the throne to a woman's ovaries and impregnate her, would only lead to the destruction of the dynamic of our current society: jealousy, STDs, divorce, financial problems, even physical and emotional abuse, even murder.

Maybe I'm just naive. I see a lot of gorgeous men every day, some physically more attractive than my husband. Do I want to bang them just because they are physically bigger, more visually appealing, stronger or healthier? Of course not. My lover is beyond physical attractiveness, he is intelligent, stable, loyal, responsible, passionate and I picked him to be my lover, share our bodies, dreams, a home, come up with ideas, to make a family, for him to be the father of my children, to share the things we consider important and pass them down to our children.

How do those infinite, deeper and more complex qualities fit into the selection of the best specimen to fertilize my eggs? I don't have a doubt that sperm quality varies between men and the strongest swimmer wins, but first, you can't physically see which hot stud happens to have the healthiest sperm; it could very well be the nerdy cutie in glasses you told him to get lost. And second, that would be a very superficial way to create an offspring.

Why have we progressed through the centuries to create a more comfortable lifestyle for ourselves as humans? Because we want to move forward, our brains have evolved into complex organs capable of infinite things. We are not here just fot the continuation of populating the earth.

Also the idea that if women go through emotional changes are no longer acceptable when our libido decreases is ridiculously assuming that we're only meant to be used by men for sexual relief. Yes men want a willing eager partner, but are also capable of understanding these changes in women, and getting professional help when needed. Yes we don't just have to give up and go screw the neighbor's wife because your wife is depressed.

Is it so hard to understand that evolution requires time and it's obvious that we still have traces of our ancestors 5 million? years ago. But that doesn't equate to "we gotta hold on to these urges because that's how things were done back in the day."

 

[Green_Knight]

Maybe I'm just naive. I see a lot of gorgeous men every day, some physically more attractive than my husband. Do I want to bang them just because they are physically bigger, more visually appealing, stronger or healthier? Of course not. My lover is beyond physical attractiveness, he is intelligent, stable, loyal, responsible, passionate and I picked him to be my lover, share our bodies, dreams, a home, come up with ideas, to make a family, for him to be the father of my children, to share the things we consider important and pass them down to our children.

How do those infinite, deeper and more complex qualities fit into the selection of the best specimen to fertilize my eggs? I don't have a doubt that sperm quality varies between men and the strongest swimmer wins, but first, you can't physically see which hot stud happens to have the healthiest sperm; it could very well be the nerdy cutie in glasses you told him to get lost. And second, that would be a very superficial way to create an offspring.

Why have we progressed through the centuries to create a more comfortable lifestyle for ourselves as humans? Because we want to move forward, our brains have evolved into complex organs capable of infinite things. We are not here just fot the continuation of populating the earth.

Also the idea that if women go through emotional changes are no longer acceptable when our libido decreases is ridiculously assuming that we're only meant to be used by men for sexual relief. Yes men want a willing eager partner, but are also capable of understanding these changes in women, and getting professional help when needed. Yes we don't just have to give up and go screw the neighbor's wife because your wife is depressed.

Is it so hard to understand that evolution requires time and it's obvious that we still have traces of our ancestors 5 million? years ago. But that doesn't equate to "we gotta hold on to these urges because that's how things were done back in the day."

No, far from naive and you make some excellent points.

As you point out, human beings' criteria for a sexual partner go far beyond the basis of "strongest sperm". Whether this is an inate part of our make up or has evolved over time is something we shall probably never know for certain. And in any case, with human female's ability to mate at any time and their ovulation not being overt, the strongest sperm will not necessarily win unless the woman has multiple partners in quick succession at precisely the right time.

Dawn for Sex argues, on the basis that we are closely related to bonobos, that our natural sexual instinct must be akin to theirs. These leads them to say that, since bonobos do not form permanent monogamous sexual relationships with individual partners, the natural human state is non-monogamous. But, because of the mating behaviour of female bonobos, a male cannot be sure which offspring are his and, as a result, parental care in bonobos is solely the responsibility of the mothers. You can't have the one without the other. By contrast, humans seem to select a partner at least partly on the basis of their suitability as parents as well as for their longer-term partner qualities.

 

[suckonsimon]

Suckonsimon: the book's explanation for your twisted monogamous behaviour is that "couples who manage to stay together for the long haul have done so by resigning themselves to sacrificing their eroticism on the altar of three of life’s irreplaceable joys: family stability, companionship, and emotional, if not sexual, intimacy." .... ....

GK, thanks for the resume! I really appreciate that.

And of course your opening and quote has me grinning widely. I think I'll slip into the conversation next time my wife is coming down through a post-orgasmic swoon while still impaled upon me, "Did you know darling that it's a proven fact that as a long-term married couple we must have sacrificed our eroticism?"

 

[Sarahduk]

My middle name is Dawn xx

 

[blowit]

My middle name is Dawn xx

Well hello Haven't seen you here for a while Sarah. Accomplished your main fantasy yet or is hubby still being stubborn?

 

[Sheana_V]

That book is amazing, and has become something I insist all my long term partners read.

 

[davet4]

Insightful highlights. I am anxious to read it.

 

[KimGordon67]

I'm truly mystified that anyone who frequents this site can attribute human sexual behaviour to 'evolution' - exactly what evolutionary purpose could 99% of the stuff you see on here serve?

Also, the fact that something is the result of 'evolution' doesn't make it 'better' - it just means it happened. But ultimately, suggesting that any social behaviour that we engage in (such as sexuality) is an evolutionary outcome is pretty flawed.