Reddit Reddit reviews Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships

We found 80 Reddit comments about Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Healthy Relationships
Love & Romance
Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships
Sex at Dawn How We Mate Why We Stray and What It Means for Modern Relationships
Check price on Amazon

80 Reddit comments about Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships:

u/ToAnchorMySoul · 14 pointsr/psychology

Well said. I'm reminded of the book, Sex at Dawn in which the whole "males are more sexual than females" stereotype is debunked. A good read if you're interested in the subject.

u/mdps · 11 pointsr/history

This lines up pretty well with the book Sex at Dawn, which I read recently. It's quite an interesting read.

u/Spazsquatch · 11 pointsr/canada

I've been reading Sex at Dawn recently which argues that in our agricultural ancestors lived non-monogamous lives during our hunter-gatherer days. The gist of it is that humans spent most of humanity living an egalitarian lifestyle that in a historical sense, was only disrupted recently.

While the book has nothing at all to do with UBI, reading between the lines it would seem that humans have the wiring to return to that sort of lifestyle, but we have a couple centuries of cultural baggage we need to get past.

u/RainbowUnicornFemme · 9 pointsr/sex

As a "unicorn", I feel I can add a little advise:

  • Always be forthcoming about your intentions with everyone you interact with. When you talk to your bf, leave it clear that this is something you want to explore with him by your side, and perhaps emphazise that you aren't doing this because he isn't enough. One of the couples I have gotten to know is super cute. He sees her liking FFM 3ways as someone who wants to eat a PB&J sandwich. Why restrict yourself to either PB or J when you can have both??

    I feel you have gotten a lot of advise as to how to approach your bf. I want to add more in terms of how to approach girls, as, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking is more likely than not that he will agree to proceed. In my experience men tend to be pretty understanding and supportive of their gfs/wives being bi and wanting to bring a girl into the bedroom for both to play with. ;)

  • Once you talk to him, I'd recommend you guys play along different scenarios and come up with ground rules and boundaries. You both need to agree on those BEFORE you try and find a girl. As a third, it is clear when a couple is looking for a third because they are in a stable relationship and want to play like that, and it is also clear when that isn't the case. I have personally ran in the opposite direction when I've met couples who are the latter. It's a lot more fun to join a established couple who knows how to have their fun ;)
  • Finally, be forthcoming with the girl too. I'd highly recommend reading "The Ethical Slut" and "Sex at Dawn". It is hard to find willing girls. Once you find one, I'd recommend you find a subtle way to leave it very clear to her that you are meaning to explore/play, not to have an emotional relationship. Unless you do want to do that. But most definitely leave your boundaries clear to the girl.

    Let me know if you have any questions. Best of luck! ;)
u/loveiscomplexfolks · 8 pointsr/AskReddit

Wow, so many angry knee jerk responses on both sides of this topic. Unsurprising, of course, but unproductive too.

I would imagine the "why" varies for everybody, but since OP correctly notes that there are a whole lot of people with their own individual "why"s, I'd recommend picking up a copy of Sex at Dawn if you're interested in some general explanations. The short answer (well, so far as that book was able to support) is that we're frankly not well built for life long pair bonding. We instituted it as a social structure to facilitate familial land ownership, we've always kind of sucked at it, and we're not very self aware about that even though the evidence is literally overwhelming. Which is not to say nobody manages to be happy with it, but it's very clear a lot of people don't.

Seems to me the best thing is just to be honest with the people you love. If you're not happy, be honest. If you're attracted to someone else, be honest. If you want change, be honest. Present yourself as you are and give them the chance to respond however they choose, and ask them to do the same with you.

There are happy marriages out there (or at least ones that claim to be) with "understood" affairs. There are poly relationships. Lots of things exist and different things work for different people. (Check out - NSFW - sometime.) It's dishonesty and deception that rightly register as betrayal and hurt people so badly that they can't trust again.

Good luck out there.

u/poopybuttfart · 7 pointsr/Maine

You act as if it comes so easily to people to resist their deepest urges. Expecting somebody to kill themselves if they can't is ridiculous also. Sex is what drives us. Some people get fucked over by their own lusts and desires. I'm not saying that I'm okay with children being molested. It's a tragic. But things aren't so cut and dry. You should read Sex At Dawn. It's pretty interesting and dips into the subject. Might make you uncomfortable but how can you learn if you don't step outside of your own world view anyway?

u/meat_eating_midwife · 7 pointsr/Feminism

This is a great book that addresses some of the questions you are asking. It’s totally opposite of what most of us have been taught, food for thought anyway. Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships

u/musicular · 7 pointsr/entp

This book is absolutely fascinating. Despite a title and cover that markets it as such, it isn't only about sex. It discusses how and why human sexuality, social structures and societies have changed over time, and explores what our natural social and sexual tendencies are (or may be). To this end, it explores a wide variety of human societies over the course of our existence, and compares us to are nearest genetic relatives--chimps and bonobos.

If anyone's interested, I can post some of the most revelatory ideas proposed in it so far. I'm not finished reading it yet.

u/spectrometric · 6 pointsr/askscience

Sex at Dawn is a book that makes the argument that no, humans are not naturally monogamous. I wasn't entirely convinced, but the book has a lot of interesting information about sex, evolutionary history, monkeys etc. Worth the read.

u/flashnash · 6 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

You should check out this book:

It's important to remember that human beings are ANIMALS - we have natural feelings that are part of our evolutionary biology. The moral dogma of religion is not realistic or even compatible with the natural way humans are wired.

u/type973 · 6 pointsr/AskReddit

I've read your replies and it's comforting to know that there are other people that think the same way I do.

I'm not sure how much this ties in, but I remember listening the to the author of this book

on the radio
(the radio program in question)

and it really made me appreciate the fact that the way we now treat relationships as monogamous on/off switches is really a social construct and that we should really be doing what feel comfortable.

I don't wanna do a game of telephone and try to re-say everything he said, b/c I'd probably butcher it.. but I recommend you listen to the radio program. I think you'd like it. (and I'd be interesting in knowing what you think).

u/srmatto · 6 pointsr/OneY

I guess I just don't give a flying fuck anymore about what pop culture says about men and women? It's such a poisoned well of nonsense that I can't begin to fathom why anyone would waste their time trying to extract any kind of personal validation, identity, soul, or meaning from it. Or why they would regard it as any kind of real authority on how to live your life and be a super awesome human being.

What I mean is you say your tired of hearing about everything women do as being described as empowering? Then stop listening. Turn off the radio, movies, and the television and pick up a good book and while your at it try autoerotic asphyxiation or a flashlight or lube or whatever while you masturbate. And know that it was your choice and your right to do it and no one can take that away from you no matter how much spittle flies from their maw when they call you a faggot. Rock'n'roll baby. Also if you do decide to pick up a book, check out Sex At Dawn. I kinda wanna punch your shoulder and give you a strong hug. :-)

u/brigantus · 5 pointsr/DepthHub

No rules broken, as far as I know, but Sex at Dawn is a rather dubious work of popular science. I wouldn't recommend it, and I'm guessing the people downvoting you agree.

By the way, you don't need RES to make links:

Sex at Dawn


Sex at Dawn

u/jaycatt7 · 5 pointsr/askgaybros

So, clearly you're attracted to women.

Are you attracted to men? It doesn't sound like it to me.

As for getting turned on by gay porn or by men in porn... IMO that's not enough to "prove" that you're gay or bi. You say you're not attracted to those guys. Some people just get turned on in the presence of anything sexual.

There may also be an evolutionary component, a pressure for (straight) men to be aroused by other men's arousal because it signals available women. I recommend Sex at Dawn if you haven't read it yet. Highly readable sex science book.

Or maybe this is how you figure out you're bi. It doesn't sound like that to me, but people are complicated. If in 5 or 10 years you're actually attracted to guys, what's the harm?

u/xnecrontyrx · 5 pointsr/AskReddit

The way your wife is going about this is detestable. That said, is this the first time she mentioned open relationship, or is it something you have talked about before with her and now she is just making it an ultimatum?

Happy relationships exist outside the traditional monogamous norm, (please see /r/polyamory) and it is entirely possible for some people (not all) to not only have sex outside their marriage, but to love outside their marriage without damaging the primary relationship.

Again, if this is a sudden out of the blue ultimatum, your wife has not done a good job at all. I seriously recommend you discuss why she wants this (i.e. sexual dissatisfaction, lost the "spark", etc.) and then discuss rules about the relationship. Open does not have to mean "you can do whatever you want", it can mean a huge number of things, and rules can exist to ease the transition and comfort level of each partner.

Recommended reading: The Ethical Slut, Sex at Dawn

TL;DR: If you care about your marriage, discuss it openly and try to put aside your pain and consider rationally.

u/k1mchi · 5 pointsr/ted

For those interested: his book, Sex at Dawn

u/overand · 4 pointsr/polyamory

Good luck!

To sound like a bot - I really suggest you all read the BASIC FAQ and INTRO stuff at

And if you're into books, some options include:

u/Veeks · 4 pointsr/SexPositive

Depends what kind of relationship you have and what you're into, but here are some of my favourites:

u/jmk816 · 4 pointsr/TrueReddit

No if we are looking at the long term, these kinds of values come into play when property ownership is relevant. When wealth comes from how much you own people want to make sure that their genetics are the ones that benefit. Since it is easy to determine the birth mother controlling women's sexual agency in terms of religion and morality in order to ensure the correct lineage. Pre-agrarian (and even some more communial agrarian) societies didn't have these concerns, so sexuality was not policed in the same way. Children were seen as adding to the whole family, which was basically the community at large.

Men could have all the sex for pleasure they wanted because it was less relevant to the economic situations. Courtisans and harems existed for men at the very top of the food chain and were completely acceptable by everyone in the court system.

I hate to say this but there has been a ton of research on this, including basic histories of certain cultures that says the exact opposite of what you are saying. How we view sex, marriage and family has changed drastically depending on the time and culture you exist in.

Marriage: A History is a very readable overview of how the institution has changed over time:

And I have heard very good things about Sex at Dawn, which talk about a lot of the arguments you are making:

u/AVeryMadFish · 4 pointsr/WTF

It's a book by Chris Ryan that goes into the science and psychology of sex.

u/KrAzYkArL18769 · 3 pointsr/polyamory

I've heard some people say that Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan is a good book; but I've also heard people say it's poorly written, so see for yourself. I haven't read it, personally.

u/yunbld · 3 pointsr/sex

This is one of the best books I've read in the last 5 years. There's not a party or bar conversation I don't leave without this book coming up. Incredibly thorough information, they take common knowledge, show you the evidence to refute it, and then present their theory, then back it up with plenty of more evidence. Well written, easy to read, pro healthy sex, I recommend this to everyone I know.

Buy it

u/myswingeracct · 3 pointsr/Swingers

loads of christians in the lifestyle but we leave politics and religion at the should too. As far as being compatible with Christianity, the bible is full of multiple wives, brothers taking over deceased brothers wives and all manner of lasciviousness. My POV...99% of the sex you have in life isn't for the purpose of making babies it is for pleasure, God wouldn't have made orgies so much fun if She didn't intend for us to partake. Church doctrine is BS made up by men to control the flock. Look into the book Sex at Dawn for a little history on how sex USED to be viewed. The idea of monogamy is relatively recent

u/johoso · 3 pointsr/OkCupid

Two things:

Don't be afraid to ask about it. Usually, something along the lines of "I noticed you're listed as seeing someone else, are you still looking for more people to date?" should suffice. Communication and transparency is paramount to the majority of poly people.

Secondly, if you've never been in a situation where polyamory is on the table, do some research; read this stuff:

Opening Up

The Ethical Slut

Sex at Dawn

Good luck!

u/epursimuove · 3 pointsr/sex
u/Watcher13 · 3 pointsr/sex

For thoughts and scientific perspectives on this very issue, I really recommend the book "Sex at Dawn" by Jetha and Ryan. Great, great read.
Amazon link

u/MissCherryPi · 3 pointsr/TheBluePill

Delusions of Gender

Sex at Dawn

Bro, do you even read?

u/mysexypolypervyacct · 3 pointsr/polyamory

Yes! /u/throwawaypolymom, if you do want to understand more about how this really works, books really are a great resource. You don't have to be interested in implementing it yourself to understand the philosophy behind it, and they're better organized and argued than just our personal reddit anecdotes. They may be challenging (reading them made me so uncomfortable at first, because I was being challenged on deep-seated assumptions I'd been raised with), but there are some really wonderful resources out there. The Ethical Slut is a great first one. Sex at Dawn is nice for a more sociological perspective. More Than Two and Opening Up are also excellent. And Ask Me About Polyamory! is wonderfully light and great for little bite-size snapshots of what poly life is truly like.

u/Yukimor · 3 pointsr/worldbuilding

Read books about cultures you've never encountered before.

I read an illustrated edition of Charles Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle (this one, to be precise). The writing, the observations, and the information contained in that book are all incredibly fascinating and made for great worldbuilding inspiration.

I also enjoyed Sex at Dawn which played an important role in the cultural development of my world (regarding attitudes toward sex, sexuality, childrearing).

I also highly recommend Good to Eat. It discusses the culture and history of food-- why some foods were adopted and became widespread, why some weren't, why some were controversial across cultures. Understanding why different cultures adopt and prefer certain kinds of foods is really important and interesting, and this book presents it in an enjoyable way.

u/KristaForest · 3 pointsr/polyamory

This book is on the anthropology of sexuality with a lot of strong evidence that suggests humans were historically polyamorous by nature (pre-agriculture) and that the rise of patriarchy and monogamy are firmly rooted in the shift from nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes to settled people with something "worth" fighting over.

u/_sacamano_ · 3 pointsr/self

Disclaimer: I'll be talking my own experiences in hopes of helping you understand yours (as much as I can at least, because I'm far from healthy myself)

You sound like me, and I sound like this. I need to see a therapist about this and I'm not going to try to say that I know why you feel the way you do, but I do know how you feel.

Before I write anything else my biggest advice is never satisfy that fear of being alone with a committed relationship. And understand our species sexuality before getting into a committed relationship. I recommend Sex At Dawn, there's an audio book on audible too. The reason I say this is because I felt for years and years that if I found that right person I'd be happy. And when I did I was. And now I feel trapped and imprisoned and too scared for fear of the pain it will cause to do anything about it. I rushed into it because of my fear of being alone, and the fact that I get shockingly attached to new relationships. Sorry for the tangent but I don't want to see others make such mistakes.

I've realized things about myself (like codependency issues) that explain a lot about me. And I realized that I have been seeking to ease my own pain through alcohol, weed (its been about 4 years now though), and relationships. I recommend you learn about yourself with the help of a therapist. There's no shame in that at all. It takes quite a bit of courage to be honest.

I know what you mean about the attached/detached thing, they talk about it in the codependency link I shared. It's not healthy though. I know the feeling of meeting a girl, getting her contact, then as soon as we part ways I feel sick to my stomach with missing her and anxiety. I am very detached however with a lot of family members, like I can't express myself. It very debilitating.

Lastly, for now at least, don't be afraid to get out of your comfort zone and meet new people. You don't have to be everyone's friend but I find it very helpful to just talk to new people. Go out by yourself with the intention of having a good time - not to get laid, or make a friend, but just have a good time. If you talk a girl/guy and they reject you smile and wish them the best (verbally or non-verbally). If you get a weird look from someone laugh about it - odds are they are going through their own shit. They are not the "normal police" out to find people going through something.

There's so much more I'd like to say but it's getting long, but it helps me to write this shit out so I don't mind at all.

u/rukestisak · 3 pointsr/Documentaries

Anybody interested in this topic should read the book Sex at Dawn - it's a book about human sexuality (especially prehistoric sexuality) and the author compares us and our ancestors to bonobos a lot.

u/clario6372 · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

If you're interested in evolution and human sexuality, you should read this. It's called Sex at Dawn, and it's one of the first books on the subject.

u/Road_to_Perversion · 3 pointsr/india

You'll be surprised how many people cheat, and how fluid morals can get in many situations, even in the most conservative of societies.

You can be in the most loyal, most loving of relationships for decades, and yet all you (both man and woman) need is a skin-deep trigger to jump into bed with someone else.

Do read "Sex at Dawn". Fascinating insights.

u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/intrusivethoughts

Your sexuality and turn-ons will make way more sense once you read a book called "Sex at Dawn".

u/petrus4 · 3 pointsr/changemyview

If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading Sex At Dawn, which theorises that non-reproductive sexual hedonism among humans, was originally a means of reinforcing social cohesion and intimacy among relatively small, band-sized groups. While lame attempts have been made to debunk it, (mainly because it is accused of being anti-feminist, which is absurd; if anything it is pro-feminist because it advocates a scenario where women are allowed to actually enjoy sex) the amount of anthropological evidence it presents is impressive, and it is also consistent with my own observations.

It's also the single best explanation for the existence of homosexuality that I've encountered yet; and also explains why gay men at least, are often highly promiscuous. It's because within the homosexual context, sex is more or less entirely social in purpose. The point is to mutually generate positive feelings with someone, not to reproduce.

u/andthecrash · 2 pointsr/polyamory
u/joe-ducreux · 2 pointsr/nonmonogamy

Rules always sound like a good idea, but I've found in practice they don't work very well.

If you want to introduce some non-monogamy aspects I'd suggest stating out with a threesome; That way you are present, know exactly what happened, and can process the experience together after the fact to see how you're both feeling.

Either way, I'd say start slow, really really slow, and take baby steps once you are both comfortable.

EDIT: Also you should both check out these books:

The Ethical Slut

Sex at Dawn

Opening Up

u/Release_the_KRAKEN · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

I think this was mentioned in the book Sex Before Dawn.

u/iamfantastikate · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Well, not every society was patrilineal, just most were. There have been numerous matrilineal societies, too, particularly in certain regions, and many others that have been, for lack of a better term, "mixed" (e.g., things not really passing down lines, but just to the community). Prior to either system, hunter-gatherer societies appear to have been largely egalitarian, probably thanks in part to their small size and loose concept of property ownership.

I've read a fair number of books that touch on the topics you're mentioning here, but I don't know that I've come across one that sufficiently explains why men were the main oppressors upon the dawn of agriculture. My best guess would be that it is easier for (most) men to control (most) women, simply due to size differences, and that ongoing control overtime creates entire systems of control (the same way it does with race). Add in the incentives of wealth and power that came with agriculture, and those who would want the power and have access to it would have had, perhaps in their minds, very good reason to literally lord over others. That's just a guess, though.

If you're really interested in these concepts, there are two books you might enjoy: (1) Sex at Dawn, which, while it isn't without faults, does regard monogamy/promiscuity and has an excellent bibliography that could provide you with a good reading list. (2) The Underground Girls of Kabul may not seem related to your question, and I suppose it doesn't directly deal with monogamy, but it certainly addresses questions of nature vs. nurture when it comes to gender and the roles men and women play in society throughout history and still to this day.

u/WJHuett · 2 pointsr/sex

This thread reminds me of a book I've just about completed, called "Sex at Dawn," which studies the prehistoric origins of human sexual behavior -- and how we let the construct of shame get in the way far too much when judging our culture.

Great book. It was change the way you look at modern sexual relationships.

u/passionatereds · 2 pointsr/BreakUps

This is exactly what I needed to hear right now. I have not heard of this guy before, but man, he has quite the imagination! I really enjoyed his style, and of course, this message. Thank you for posting this. I'll now be adding Sex at Dawn to my reading list!

u/CorvidaeSF · 2 pointsr/polyamory

I haven't watched it, but I've read Sex at Dawn which I'm sure says a lot of the same things, and yuuuuuuuuuup.

u/mavnorman · 2 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Sorry for not responding earlier, but I'm in a different time zone, and it was very late yesterday.

The linked review is about the book behind the TED talk, called "Sex at Dawn", and another book critically checking its claims, called "Sex at Dusk".

If one can summarize the points of the critic, it's probably that the main thesis of "Sex at Dawn" runs contrary to much of what we currently know about evolution in general, and the evolution of humans in particular.

u/gringo-gaijin · 2 pointsr/sex

> Humans are not wired for monogamy but you can tell yourself that to continue your narcissistic enthronement of your own existence.

Wow! Even if I agreed with you in principle. I would not agree with your negative accusations, judgment, and blame. You are at the level of trolling with this comment and I will feed you no more after this response.

You can believe what you want, just as I can believe what I want, but do please learn to be respectful in the process. I suspect the problem you are having is your belief system that has supported you all your life is being fractured by people with alternative beliefs that don't fall in line with yours. And you are sadly mistaken that my existence is narcissistic. You don't know me anymore than I know who you are. Take your judgment elsewhere.

> The more partners one has the more dissatisfied one becomes in monogamy. In essence, you create the problem yourself and then justify it.

This goes quite contrary to married couples who have been monogamous all their life, yet later in life consensually open up their marriage to other people. This is much more common than you know. Only because our society and religious beliefs frowns upon it as morally bad so it's not talked about openly. When really as long as everyone consents, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Seeing as how you are defending the monogamous side, you probably don't have any personal experience and interactions with others about this because you haven't swam in ethical non-monogamous circles to see what goes on.

> But I don't expect you to believe me or mature towards an adult who cares for his/her responsibilities.

You're right, I don't believe you. But that does not mean I am not mature as an older adult, nor does it mean that I do not take care of my responsibilities, or suggest that others shirk their responsibilities.

> Keep serving yourself and discard anyone who inhibits you. That is a truly attractive character trait.

You cannot serve or help others before you take care of yourself. And I'd encourage anyone who is feeling inhibited by any entity to question whether it is necessary or helpful their life. People don't have to accept the artificial constraints that negative religious, parental, and cultural training imposes upon us. Matter of fact, we could all stand to get rid of the resulting toxic shame that results from that stuff.

u/Daerion · 2 pointsr/atheism

Upvoted - asking for citations should not be reason enough for downvotes.

To answer your question: it is very reasonable to assume that, biologically, humans are not monogamous creatures. Some indicators for that are our comparatively low sexual dimorphism (hinting at low male intrasexual competition for females [1]), our relatively large testicles and penis size (hinting at sperm competition, rather than physical competition - again common for non-monogamous mating strategies [2]) and penis shape (the often referred-to "semen displacement device", again hinting at a promiscuous mating system [3]) for instance.

Also, there are no monogamous group-living primates (see [4]) today - simply because that would most likely destroy the group (males competing for and monopolizing females within the group, this leading to intrasexual conflict between the males, which will ultimately fission the group as a whole). And group living primates is exactly what humans were for all but the last ~10k years - i.e. throughout most of our evolution (of course we still are - but the dawn of agriculture changed everything about our social dynamics).

I'm sorry I can't provide better sources, but this should at least get you started on the topic. And if you're really interested I can recommend "Sex at Dawn - The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality" [5], these points are explained in much more detail there.






u/Mrs_Way · 2 pointsr/sex

Humans are socially monogamous but not sexually. Men feel more betrayed by sexual infidelity than emotional and women are the other way around. It's in our nature to want to fuck other people, but it's in our culture to feel like we have to commit to one person for our whole life. And in our culture, a successful marriage is defined by death. If your marriage ends in death, it's a success. Even if you were both miserable the whole time.

I think monogamy will the the social norm for a long time, but ever so slowly people are realizing that it's not always realistic. Gay couples are the least likely to be monogamous, followed by straight couples and then lesbians. So that tells you that men are the issue with being monogamous. The reason why women are the most monogamous has a variety of answers which I can provide upon request. The sooner people come to terms with this, the better in my opinion. Over the course of a multi-decade relationship, infidelity is bound to touch a relationship to some degree.

I am personally in a monogamish relationship with my SO and I couldn't imagine it any other way. This relationship has brought us so close together, it feels so natural to us. I'm not against monogamous relationship if that's what the couple truly wants. But I'm pro realistic views on monogamy.

I have so much to say on this topic but I want to keep it short so it's not intimidating to read. But I HIGHLY recommend Sex at Dawn. It's a book on human monogamy that will change your perspective.

u/nlakes · 2 pointsr/AskMen

Here you go. (It starts off very dry to lay the ground work, but when you get to the second half it really comes alive).

u/reasonweb · 1 pointr/polyamory

Might I suggest reading "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan? I think that will help with what I'm perceiving as you having some outdated notions of the differences between male and female sexuality. But to be quickly specific you need to make sure you understand that the benefits and pitfalls you would be getting from polyamory would be EXACTLY the same as those of your girlfriend.

Link: Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships

u/Laniius · 1 pointr/Foodforthought

I have no idea how it is, as I haven't read it yet, but the bookstore I work in carries this.

u/MetaMemeticMagician · 1 pointr/TheNewRight


The Way of Men – Jack Donovan***
Sperm Wars – Robin Baker
Sex at Dawn – Christopher Ryan
Why Men Rule – Steven Goldberg
The Manipulated Man – Esther Vilar
Is There Anything Good About Men? – Roy Baumeister
Demonic Males – Dale Peterson
The Essential Difference – Simon Baron-Cohen
The Mating Mind – Geoffrey Miller
The Red Queen – Matt Ridley



Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers – Tom Wolfe
Public Choice: An Introduction – Iain McLean
On Government Employment – Foseti (blog post)
Yes, Minister – TV Show



u/thmz · 1 pointr/madmen

I got this from an interview with the guy who wrote this:

He has a PhD and the interview is less than a year older.

u/LittleHelperRobot · 1 pointr/relationship_advice

Non-mobile: this

^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble. ^WUT?

u/twocoffeespoons · 1 pointr/collapse

You're very right. Most people have a very outdated view of how hunter gatherers actually lived. For example, the short life-expectancy rates everyone quotes were only due to the high infant mortality rates. If you survived past the age of 7, as a hunter gatherer, you're average life-expectancy was around 72 years old. Not bad!

If you're interested in learning more about the daily lives of prehistoric man, I recently finished [Sex at Dawn] ( . It's a pretty interesting read :)

u/WildBerrySuicune · 1 pointr/funny

Random tangent but, have you by any chance read Sex at Dawn? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

u/Terrance_cloth · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Oh, man, this is a long debate that could end badly and come down to shouting.

I believe that its because humans have evolved to not be monogamous. WHAT?! Not only that, but women want to have multiple partners in one night. DOUBLE WHAT?!?

Let's look at some evidence:

  1. Sexual arousal - Ladies have a lower labido, right? Dudes want it all the time. All the time. And they have to stay ready for when a willing female pops up. "But how do they find that willing female? They don't advertise!" False.

  2. Women are LOUD during sex - Guys will grunt with effort, but generally you don't hear the male through your apartment wall. Ladies on the other hand, make a noise that is pretty recognizable from far far off. They are calling for more partners. What guy hears that and doesn't immediately know what it is? Hell, their natural instinct is to find the source.

  3. MMF threesomes, orgy and gangbang porn - This is way too popular. There are a lot of people making it so that means there is a lot of people watching it. Notice their isn't a ton of grandma porn out there? There would be if people watched it, but it's not a big sub genre. But two guys going to town on a lady? All over. And men are by far the bigger consumers of porn than women, so to say that dudes are only interested in MFF threesomes doesn't hold much weight.

  4. Jealousy - With all this interest in gangbangs and MMF threesomes, you would think there would be a lot more fist fights and shots fired calls for Holiday Inns, but they aren't. Jealousy is a feeling that we actually encourage in our society. Do we encourage anger over neighbors encroaching on our lawns? "Nah, man. Work that shit out in the courts. No need to be uncivil." How about sharing of toys for kids? "You let him play with it now, Tommy. He's a guest." But some random guy is talking to your woman at the bar? "I'll go with you, let's fuck him up."

  5. Survival of the fittest - So if guys aren't fighting at the gangbang and threesomes, how does evolution create competition to find the fittest person for passing on the genes? The competition to fertilize the egg is happening in the lady in question. A man's last shot of sperm has is actually semi poisonous to other sperm, almost like throwing out thumbtacks to pop tires for the next guys that comes (cums) along. And actually, the first shot of sperm from a man are tougher than the second, being able to defend themselves from said thumbtacks.

  6. Penis shape - Why the hell is the penis shaped like that????? According to the going theory on this, it's shaped like that to scrape out other sperm left by the previous guy. Same with all that thrusting.

  7. I could go on an on. Instead, check out Radiolabs episode on sperm ( and also Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha (
u/orthometaparadigm · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

A good explanation. I would like to point out, however, that your evolutionary arguments are currently in dispute. You are assuming that pair bonding and monogamy are behaviors that have been present for much of our evolutionary history. This is called Flintstoning: projecting our current modes of behavior onto the past and then seeking explanations that fit them in.

An alternative explanation, discussed well and at length in the book Sex at Dawn, involves the concept of sperm competition. The basic argument is that for most of our anthropologically modern history (the part of our history during which we could be said to be 'human') male and female humans both mated with a number of different partners from the same band and that direct mate competition evolved to be on the level of the sperm, rather than the organism. Sex was used mainly as a means of reenforcing social ties and uniting the group. The argument is certainly quite in depth (it took a book to make) but they cite a number of features of our sexuality that point this way:
-Men are largely silent during sex, while women tend to be vocal
-Humans are universally turned on by the sound and sight of others copulating
-Men require a refractory period (discussed above), while women are multi-orgasmic
The hypothesis put forth in the book is that we are designed to mate with an assortment of partners and let the sperm duke it out to be (and in some ways let the vagina decide who is) the 'best' mate. This avoids physical conflict between males (such as the way undulates rut) which could injure or kill them resulting in a loss of food gathering ability and protection for the band.

TL;DR a man gets tired and disinterested after sex to let another man have a turn.

u/margerym · 1 pointr/RedPillWomen

I've been really wanting to read this book with all of the paleo-fantasizing going on these days and now I am moving it to the top of my list. Of course I am going to need to compare it with Sex at Dawn just out of curiosity. Funny enough it was Sex at Dawn that started to sell me on this way of thinking but that's a whole other conversation. What I find interesting about this is that I first read it in a marriage book a few years back that people were panning because it dared to say there was a difference between the sexes. How To Improve Your Marriage Without Talking About It goes into the attachment thing early on. The whole book runs off it.

Anyway, this has me thinking about a lot of stuff this morning. I may be back later with some things but for now I will let them stew. Thanks for linking!

u/MedeaDemonblood · 1 pointr/sex

I got fucked not two days ago and I'm going to get fucked tonight. That's really not the issue. Have you read/heard of Sex at Dawn?

u/justyouraverageguy · 1 pointr/sex

Either that or orgies. Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha speculate in Sex at Dawn that since bonobos frequently partake in orgies, it is reasonable to assume that our ancestor did so as well. Bit of a leap if you ask me, but nonetheless.

u/LookingForVheissu · 1 pointr/sex

Sex at Dawn. It's a book. It's also a fascinating read.

Edit: Here's a link.

u/PsychedelicVisions · 1 pointr/sexover30

Your ideas about male vs female sexuality are a bit off base.

I’d recommend this book

u/AReaver · 1 pointr/psychotherapy

As far as from the perspective of a therapist? No, I'm not sure if any exist yet and if there are any there are very few of them.

As Snushine said The Ethical Slut is generally the first book recommended to those who are starting to look into non-monogamy. It covers quite a variety of things, styles, questions, and ideas but it is not really something in depth.

Sex at Dawn is more of a scientific book that looks at the history and anthropology of non-monogamy. They feel that they fully debunk the idea that "monogamy is a natural state of man" (paraphrasing) citing and examining things from evolutionary changes to modern tribes.

Those are two I've personally read and there are others out there. I can find you a recommended poly reading list if that's what you're looking for.

u/iluminatiNYC · 1 pointr/TheRedPill

First of all, I would like to state that before mentioning my additions that books should be thought of like classes in college. Yes, you need the basic knowledge to go do what you're going to do, but you also need to get off your ass and apply it.

Without further ado, here are my recommendations in addition to what was mentioned.

Pimp by Iceberg Slim (Robert Beck). It's a nice introduction to the psychology of gaming women on top of an interesting exploration of race, gender and intersectionality. It's smarter than it's rep.

The Mystery Method by Mystery (Erik von Markovik). It's not a great book, but it gives you immediate actionable steps to apply immediately. Then, once you read the theory and get experience, you can apply what you learned.

The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. This should be read with the next book to up your fundamentals in evo-psych.

Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan. Written as a critique of the first book, these two will give you some deeper theory of evo-psych.

u/Dain42 · 1 pointr/gaymers

On the second point of it being a choice or not, I can't believe that nobody's yet mentioned the mountains of scientific data that exist on the topic. This doesn't work for every person who proffers the "choice objection", but if they have any respect for the scientific method, all of these are important. Plus, it's important for you to be literate in these matters. Hell, it's important for everyone to be literate in these (and similar) matters of science, in my opinion, since topics like genetics and epigenetics are coming up more and more in legal contexts.

Sorry if this gets a bit long. There is a wealth of material on this. Which in and of itself is an important thing to note: this has been the subject of a lot of study, and we have gleaned information from that study, even if we don't understand it fully.

In short, give this sort of information to your sister, and her dick of a doctor. Let him dismiss this as "your feelings".



The data are on the side of it being closely (but not exclusively) tied to genetic factors. They don't indicate that it is solely tied to these factors, but just a quick look at twin studies gives a pretty clear indication that there is a genetic factor to it (the rate of monozygotic twins who have the same orientation is far, far higher than the rate of any two PBAC (edit: particular but arbitrarily chosen, sorry, forgot that's not a common acronym) people from the population). The fact that the rate isn't approximately 100% is an indication that some other factor, epigenetic or environmental (which includes the prenatal environment), has some impact.


On the epigenetic front there are also studies which seem to indicate some correlation.


There are multiple studies that have found this to be a major factor as well. Their findings are commonly called the older brother effect:

> The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known biodemographic predictor of sexual orientation. According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of having a homosexual orientation by 28–48%. The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men. There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect related to the number of older sisters.

If you want to read the studies (or at least reports on the studies—not sure how many of the actual studies are published beind paywalls) more in-depth, just check the sources on the Wiki article.


All of the above tend to fall into the area of what average people think of as "nature" when talking about "nurture vs. nature". As you can see, as usual, there's more than a bit of a grey area in between that choice that's presented as a binary. That's not to say that there is no room for any of the environmental factors we tend to think of as strictly "nurture", i.e., human interactions and early childhood development, but generally studies seem to indicate that after about three years of age, there is little to nothing that seems to have any effect on sexual orientation, and I think most people would have trouble arguing that a child of that age consciously chooses a sexual orientation.


There's a lot out there, but here are a few that I'd recommend on various fronts:

Virtually NormalAndrew Sullivan - A serious of four common cultural positions on homosexuality, then a fifth synthesis of them (Sullivan's personal view). Helpful for understanding the various arguments made.

What the Bible Really Says About HomosexualityDaniel A. Helminiak — A (semi) former Caholic Priest and multiple Ph.D.-holder discusses the pertinent verses in the book in cultural and linguistic context. A good book for religious parents, though it will probably hold more weight with mainline protestants and Catholics who generally don't go in for so-called "literal" readings of English Bibles.

Sex at Dawn — Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá — A mostly anthropological (as far as I know) investigation of human sexuality over history and prehistory. Not exclusively about homosexuality. I have not read this one yet, but I've heard the authors interviewed several times about it, and it seems like it would be worth it. It's on my to-read list.



Another frequent objection brought by those who use the objection of "it's a choice" is the "it's not natural" objection. I don't want to go too far into that, but to anyone paying attention, it's pretty clearly and definitively natural.

For more reading on the topic, see Evolution's Rainbow, which is basically a field guide to gay sex in the animal kingdom. It is a fairly thick book.




Well, I'm not going to be so self-important as to say you should read every word I've written (though I think you should read my sources). There is a cartoon that sums a lot of this up. This is taken from a longer film called For the Bible Tells Me So.

u/h3rby · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Reading Sex At Dawn,
monogamy is bogus.
Fucking friends is fun.

u/GSpotAssassin · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Monogamy is pretty damn rare in the animal kingdom.

I think birds outdo us, even.

Perhaps the real problem is the expectation of absolute monogamy and not just this person will be by my side for life. It is that letdown that is so devastating. I mean, the Romans even accepted that "outside crushes" would not only happen but would be sated (temporarily). Their marriages were based on practical things more than romance/love, however.

Also, Sex at Dawn is a pretty fucking interesting read, as is the much shorter and easily digestible Wikipedia entry on Monogamy across the animal kingdom (and our own human cultures).

u/BeanBone · 1 pointr/funny

Back in the day when we used to engage in multiple male, single female sex all the time, the money shot meant you were up next. Hence, men still have a positive association with watching another guy finish.

Check out this book for more.

u/The_Greetest · 1 pointr/AskReddit

You might find this book relevant.

u/MorbidPenguin · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan

The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond

The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris

u/benisnotapalindrome · 0 pointsr/sex

This is an absolutely brilliant book that breaks this question down. The short answer? In the not-so-distant past, before the advent of agriculture, that is exactly what you would do. Everyone shared resources, casual sex with just about everyone was not only allowed but encouraged because it fostered friendship and cooperation and caring, jealously wasn't a factor, women were often in charge, and generally everyone was happy, healthy, and well cared for. There wasn't really war to speak of.

Then, we invented agriculture. Suddenly private property became a thing, and it was all down hill from there. People were limited to a plot of land to defend. War, monogamy, and fidelity were are culturally learned behaviors that we adopted once we shifted away from nomadic living.

Seriously, this book takes a very witty but thoroughly researched and developed approach to answering why there is so much focus on fidelity and sexual reservedness when our bodies seem to yearn for ALL the sex with ALL the partners, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

u/fukenhippie · 0 pointsr/psychology

"the female body, likes everything, or at least responds to everything (or does not know what it likes, some cynics will say) Female physiological arousal (as measured by vaginal lubrication) occurs in response to viewing most any type of sexual activity:"

God forbid, that women get turned on by many different things. Oh the horror at the thought of women having a very active libido. Women are only supposed to want to have sex in the missionary position, with one partner, until they die. They don't get turned on by anything besides rose petals, chocolate, romance and the thought of becoming a mother.

" According to this theory, the vagina immediately becomes moist at any hint of sexual activity in the vicinity so as to protect the woman from injury in the event of rape or sexual violence. "

Did the thought ever occur to them that women's bodies might get respond that way to sexual stimuli so they can get ready to have sex too! The vagina could never get ready for random sexual intercourse just for the fun of it, you know outside of procreation. I hear a lot of biased interpretations based in Victorian era western notions of female sexuality.

Take a gander at Sex at Dawn for a less biased account of human sexuality.

u/Saccaed · -1 pointsr/sex

Bonobos. Plus whatever personal life experience variations you've encountered.

u/ThePowerOfDreams · -6 pointsr/relationship_advice

You weren't wired monogamously; neither was I. I also discovered this after trying monogamy and wondering why it never felt right.

Instead of signing up for more brainwashing, read this and discover why you're actually a lot more normal than you think!

Re the marriage, it sucks that her friends have turned her against you, and in my opinion she should have taken your honest, intensive attempts into account, but what's done is done. Share custody and believe me when I say it isn't okay today, and it won't be okay tomorrow... but it will be okay.

I suggest not engaging in monogamous relationships in the future; ethical nonmonogamy is likely vastly more compatible with how you're wired, and will be a great plan to set yourself up for success instead of failure with future relationships.

u/browndelicious · -18 pointsr/relationship_advice

How about using this as a chance to talk about both of your real, honest needs. Do you really think you're going to be able to meet ALL of her physical and emotional needs for the rest of your lives? Monogamy doesn't work.