Reddit reviews Sex at Dawn

Humans are a social species. Our survival, as a group, is dependent on how we operate as a group. The ability for an individual to reproduce is not as important as it is for our tribe to reproduce.

A popular theory that relates this idea to issues of homosexuality, is that gay people serve a sociological purpose in helping to care for children whose parents die or are injured. If every member of the tribe was baby-making, there would be too many kids and some would end up dying anyway. Having some extra non-reproducing care-givers allows us to focus on advancing the tribe, rather than on simply trying to keep as many people alive as possible.

I would recommend the book Sex at Dawn if you want to read more about this. The book covers a lot of other interesting information too.

One of my favorite tidbits from the book; Ancient tribes, and even some aboriginal tribes that still exist today, did not practice monogamy, and they believed that a baby was the result of accumulated semen from many men. As such, our ancestors didn't really have the concept of a single father. All the men of the village treated all of the children of the village as their shared cum-blob babies that they helped produce along with the other men of the tribe.

Ahh, so your waking up?

As someone who likes libertarian ideas, I still acknowledge that any form of it as a "free-market" government; is just as much of an utopian fairyland as that dreaded communism/socialism most libertarians hate. It's just not reality, like pretending capitalism didn't get us where we are technologically and as a modern society, it did, but it was pretty brutal about it.

But it is to be expected, because humans are human.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to a society that is more based on the NAP, or personal responsibility and accountability for your actions. That's a good thing about the current libertarian ideas gaining popularity. Or transparency of all public actions; so all the back door crap that kings and dictators have done though millennia, or in our current 'democracies,' as in the corporation commissions that twist their mandates to oversee a public monopoly, against the very public it's supposed to be serving, usually for profit.

Humans are human; most are good, they just want to propagate as their evolutionary drives make them do, enjoy their kids, and hopefully have nice lives with nice neighbors. We wouldn't even have societies in the first place if we weren't that way. Read Sex at Dawn if you want to know more.

The few, incredibly greedy sociopaths that game the system are the real ones that fuck shit up. Because rules are put into place because of the very people who don't follow "the rules," or common decency in the first place. Or because we learned something new, so to prevent further ignorance or harm from multiplying, so we create more rules going forward. But the people who game the system, are the very reason why you need those very rules to not game the system in the first place. And in a system without rules, the biggest stick beats everyone else down, so it's not very pretty for anyone who isn't interested in gaming the system. That's why the dictators your talking about do what they do. Medieval Feudal-land is not a pretty place.

But if someone has money (like the Koch brothers in our "democracy") they will use whatever they can to further their goals, like claiming to be "libertarians" and using people for their own ends. Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan are perfect examples of current scumbags as well.

So speaking up is great, but as Churchill said, ""Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried." I hope the NAP and other libertarian ideals can be more incorporated into our "Democracies" going into the future. I like The Zero Marginal Cost Society for it's current ideas, but it's not infallible, as no book is perfect.

Check out Sex at Dawn for a viewpoint that challenges the theories already well described in other responses.

Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What it Means for Modern Relationships https://www.amazon.com/dp/1491512407/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_vUznzbGARVES5

EDIT: I fully realize that Sex at Dawn is not the be-all-end-all statement on human sexuality. It exists within a large body of research. Some of that research validates the claims in S@D, some hotly disputes it.

At no point did I suggest someone take what it says (or what I say) at face value. Do your own reading. Form your own conclusions. Don't blindly accept something no matter who says it's true!

Sex at Dawn is very readable and approachable for most people, unlike many scientific journals. It exposes much of the cultural "standard narrative" most of us are taught and gives an opening for thought that disagrees with that.

IT IS A POSSIBLE STARTING POINT, NOT GOSPEL!


***


There is actually a fairly large body of scientific research that human beings as a species are not designed for biological monogamy. If you look at our closest genetic relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, researchers see a great deal of behavior that is completely "natural" yet would make a conservatively minded human gasp, blush, or react with outrage.

I firmly believe non-monogamy in all it's forms, including polyamory, is a natural behavior for humans.

I also firmly believe monogamy is a social structure that is taught to us both openly and through our culture as the "Standard Narrative".

Ultimately I also believe it is everyone's individual choice what style relationships they want to be involved in.

Want more info on the scientific research? Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha is a great place to start.

Sex At Dawn is a good place to start.

I don't know if that's the source of the original commenter but that sounds like what I read in Sex At Dawn.

You should consider reading Sex At Dawn (https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407) and see if you can come to terms with porn being a natural thing for humans. I pay for my boyfriends porn subscription (because I handle the smaller bills), I encourage that because I am 1000% fulfilled sexually in our relationship and I am not even remotely jealous or intimidated by porn. It’s a fantasy world and he enjoys it - why would I limit that? He would never choose porn over having sex with me.

There's theories that lineage only became important when property became a thing. Some point after switching from hunter/gatherer to using agriculture and building structures, "we" wanted to know our farmlands were being passed on to our actual offspring. Otherwise, what is the biological advantage to knowing or caring about this? Especially considering the majority of mammals are not this way, including (as you say) our direct descendants.

This is mostly paraphrasing from the book Sex at Dawn, which I read a while ago so may be missing some key points.

I'm only referring to the baby thing here, though. I don't think you're far off with the "competition" aspect, as any proper competition would reduce or eliminate our chances of passing on our genes (which is a biological imperative).

honestly, I do think polygamy is a normal part of the human condition. read the book sex at dawn. http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

Actually we are not evolutionarily monogamous. Also people have historically lived almost as long as we do now, provided they did not die from disease, accidents, or a jealous lover.

Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan

You're pretty much correct:

https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

Long term monogamy can be hard. I think most people would admit variety is nice. According to Dr. Christopher Ryan's work monogamy has only because our default state because of social conditioning.

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

Read the book, "Dawn of Sex" etc... it's just basic biological anthropology.
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

Men, please. Don't define yourself in any way by this reproductive organ. We're more evolved than a fucking lizard.

Sex at Dawn talks about this as well.

men without testosterone also struggle with desire. they want nothing, and they don't know who they are... testosterone defines a mans identity. Theres a really good book that disccuses this - Sex at dawn > http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

Yup, loyal to that one women as to ensure successful birth and upbringing of offspring. That is why men ideally just come once at a time.

Women, on the other hand, have a greater advantage when mating with multiple partners. Read the book, "Sex at Dawn." Helpful and explains better than I ever can.

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

Another nuance I haven't seen mentioned here is your phrasing "in love". When people say "in love", they often refer to the phase of a relationship in the early part, where you are infatuated. Your brain releases oxytocin, a substance pretty similar to narcotics. That's the bonding phase. A similar thing happens after childbirth (different chemical, if I recall correctly). During that infatuation phase, it's rare to want anything other than the target of your heroin-like desire. Not at all impossible, but rarer.

(The likely reason for this mate bonding period is to get the parents together long enough to have children. And then the post-birth hormone high is so you love and take care of the kids. Evolution!)

The more interesting part is when the initial hormone high in the beginning of being in love fades. Most people there definitely see attractive members of their desired sex as attractive. Some relationships (a minority) talk about this and keep it physical and don't let it ruin their relationship. Many relationships (IIRC, about 40%) have 1+ member cheat on the other. Most never find out. some stats (I do not know the validity of the source)


There are lots of societal forces at work here. Pair bonding to raise kids all the way to modern adulthood is a process far longer than our monkey-brains are wired for. And throughout history/pre-history we haven't always been monogamous.


Some interesting (and somewhat controversial) reading is the book sex at dawn

Read Sex at Dawn:

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

It's one of the most scientific looks at sexuality you'll find, lacking any bias for or against modern gender norms, including monogamy.

Some did, some didn't. Read the book, Sex at Dawn.
https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

Sex At Dawn and Sex With Kings we're both great. More general than you're looking for maybe, but fascinating.

If you really want answers have a look at this book

This is explained at length in Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What it Means for Modern Relationships

Buy it, read it, great book.

Dr. Christopher Ryan postulated in a JRE episode (I can't remember which) that in the evolution of human sexuality way before pre-agricultural society and nomadic tribes, why the "gay gene" persist in human populations over evolutionary time If gay men – pretty much by definition – take themselves out of the gene pool, why are their genes still in there splashing around?

To paraphrase it simply, our historical ancestral males provided the security blanket that females required to survive: Food. Shelter. Protection from predators and other hostile tribes. The males were rewarded with sex and passing on their dominant genes to the next generation while the weaker males genes left were dead in the water. However, because they were weaker and posed no threat to the alpha males, for the weaker males they could stealthily get closer to females innocuously.

So their genes gets passed along and over the course of millennia that hidden gene is still locked in our species and it manifests itself as homosexual behavior. This is also coupled by the complex societal factors that also play an integral part in how its reflected in the environment that's to silly things like governmental and religious factors. So far this is one of the few theories that make the most sense to me from a biological perspective. I just wish I could remember that episode because it was a fascinating podcast, so if anyone knows it or can find it, however if you're curious to know more I highly suggest you read his book, Sex At Dawn as he goes more into detail in the evolution human sexual behavior and how our ancient instincts impact modern society. It's a brilliant read.

I think the most accessible, holistic explanation of the scientific/academic discussion of this Ive read in the past few years is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407 It's such a fun read.

And his website has some videos if you are looking for a bit of a quicker exposition, they cite their data and IMHO are appropriately critical thinkers. https://chrisryanphd.com

> How can offspring be a side effect?

Because sex is primarily for social bonding. Reproduction is the byproduct (though as fundamental to our survival as it is) of successful social bonding. Just look at the world around you. Look how sexualized it is. Look at our recorded past, it is just as sexualized as now, though not as open and public. Look at how integral that sexuality is to social structures, and how disconnected from pregnancy and babies it can often be. Why would you think that this level of sexualization is a new thing? Recorded history tells us its been around forever. The science says we evolved with it in prehistoric times.

> As for the social aspect of sex, and the female orgasm, nature doesn't select for things, it selects against them.

Exactly. Imagine no orgasms and no sex for pleasure vs. lots of hot pleasurable sex. Take a guess at which group nature is going to select against. If social bonding was not a primary function it wouldn't have mattered whether women had a clitoris or not. There would not be an opportunity for a change in nature to breed them out, as any variable in nature would have no effect on our sexual functions if it was primary for making babies.

Look at the stats on those having sex vs. those that aren't, those in healthy marriages vs. those that aren't. Look at the stigma of sexless marriages, late virgins, etc. Sexual dysfunction can lead to suicide in extreme cases, I don't know how you could make any closer of a tie between sex and livelihood than that.

Happiness is tied to sex, happiness leads to social cohesion, social cohesion leads to a flourishing social group, which leads to longer life, more stability, and most importantly better odds of surviving the next drought, the next flood or whatever nature throws their way to try to breed them out.

I would highly recommend the book Sex at Dawn as it explains this far better than I ever could. The book deals more with the myth of human monogamy, but it covers a lot of the anthropological side of human sexuality as well.

Sex At Dawn

as a few others have said there are some serious issues going on here. and different professionals are going to point you in different directions. Develop some of your own insights.

>my wife and I both loved to have sex, we would do it multiple times a day. And really what happened was for her, after we got more comfortable her excitement and energy more so went away

This is all too common. and it has complex biological roots, that are really counter-intuitive to many peoples views on sexuality. If she can't or won't pinpoint her reasons... well

read this

and

read this

see what rings true. The second suggestion is a particularly quick read. but they are both very much worth your time. develop your own insights.

You might enjoy this book. I'm reading it atm and it's pretty decent at beginning the long process of noticing what is arbitrary cultural conditioning and what is deeper, in regards to sex and all of its friends.

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

I can't tell you about dinosaurs, but I can recommend two life changing books:

A History of God:

http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563

This book actually details how the God people worship today came to be, from older gods in older religions. It's a historical account of today's God. This will change your perspective on modern religion forever. It's interesting because, though the world is dominated by a few religions today, these religions are very new. They are man-made, just like older religions, but compared to the older religions, they haven't existed very long at all. Essentially, this book is a scientific look at the evolution of modern religion. Evolution of species is interesting in of itself, but the evolution of societies (religions, governments, nations, societal structures) is just as interesting. This is similar to my next recommendation...

Sex at Dawn:

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397836128&sr=1-1&keywords=sex+at+dawn

This book is a scientific look at the evolution of human sexuality. I think the most interesting thing about this book for me, was that it was the first thing I ever read that explained how the concept of marriage is a man-made concept, and is only a few thousand years old. So, for hundreds of thousands of years before that, humans and hominids did not marry. In other words, the idea of a life-long bond is not in our DNA. In fact, our ancestors lived MUCH differently than we do today, and, arguably, much better.

These two books will blow your mind. I think they are essential and are very easy to read. You can read both in a couple weeks' time.

If any are interested here are two books that I highly recommend that explain this phenomenon.

The first is written from an LDS perspective and is my personal favorite. The title is "The Secret of Tiny Cloud". Here is a link to the print copy.
https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Tiny-Cloud-Mr-Woodhouse/dp/1537532049

or if you prefer an electronic copy

https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the-secret-of-tiny-cloud/id899109849?mt=11

The second is more academic. It is called "Sex at Dawn.

https://www.amazon.ca/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

Do read Sex at Dawn, https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407 .

They call that idea, that women are whores, "the standard model" and then they proceed to destroy it. It's also a fun read and extremely helpful.

There is definitely a book about how prehistoric people and ancient cultures e polyamorous...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

Nur falls es dich interessiert, wie ich (unter anderem) zu meinen Ansichten gekommen bin, hier ein Buchtipp: https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

Enthält natürlich keine bahnbrechenden Erkenntnisse, aber ein paar meiner Meinung nach schlüssige Argumentationen.

Und: Sorry für das "Brudi", Schwesti Ü

Not our closest relatives the Bonobos

Have you read the book Sex at Dawn? It's a whole lot of sources pointing to the fact that sexual monogomous pair-bonding is not quite as important to humans as history wants us to believe. Full of cited sources. http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/1491512407

Why is it just philosophical? I think you could also use science (such as scientific data) to back up or weaken those arguments.

For instance, I just finished reading Sex at Dawn about sexual evolution and basically, a lot of what's been fed to us about our "sexual nature" has been social construct. For instance, for centuries we've been told than men are more sexually driven... But there is other scientific data that can weaken that claim. Darwin, for example, used a lot of convenient interpretation that benefited the more powerful status of his gender. Another example, religious people love to use that were innately monogamous or innately heterosexual. Or white supremacists who tout that being white is an evolutionary advantage that makes them "better".

That's what the statement was towards. Hope that helps clear it up.

Edit: why is this being downvoted? I'm trying to learn and have a discussion by clearing up what /u/WildZontar said to be "exceptionally vague"

violence is not human nature

​

edit: downvoters should go read a book.

edit 2: i find it hilarious I'm being downvoted for presenting an evidence-backed scientific argument. go wild.