Talk:Sex at Dawn/Archive1

Yikes
Yikes. I found a free chapter of this a while back. While the arguments of the self-appointed moral guardians (read: Anti-Sex League) are bluster and nonsense, the book seems to have quite a bit noble savage evolutionary/paleoanthropological morality tales for the masses in it. A couple of good posts here and here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kinda. But the entire book acknowledges the difficulties of pre-historical life for humans and some of the "compromises" made when agriculture enabled civilization.  Almost the entire book is devoted to the discussion of the bullshit that modern humans deal with in relationships in comparison to not just the pre-historical humans but current "primitive" human societies, many who don't have the same problems western civilizations have, mostly through the presentation of evidence.  There is an underlying assertion, but it doesn't really become named until the end of the book...and it's more of a question than the presentation of an argument. -- Seth Peck (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They seem to be pretty enthusiastic about pushing a narrative about the "true nature" of human sexuality. I would have to read the whole thing to get a better handle on the argument. It doesn't seem to be wrong so much as just overplaying their hand in certain areas. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So NOW we can talk about this then? -- Seth Peck (talk)
 * Sure, I guess. If I had to write a review, it would probably end up looking close to Barbara King's, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
Thanks for including this section, Neb...it does feel more balanced now. I am slightly concerned about the remark re: what we saw in primitive cultures vs. what is today. One of the points of the book is that forager (hunter-gatherer) tribes that practice what modern societies generally consider taboo still exist, and it's not just a "here's what humans used to do, and here's what no longer happens" assertion. I tried to make this clear in the summary,&mdash;maybe I didn't. Or something else? I certainly don't think it's irrelevant. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I should see if the library has the book. (I bet it's checked out, though. :D) I'm working off your summary and a "free" (ahem) preview of a couple of chapters that I found floating around on the internets, which are unfortunately not wholly pertaining to the main thrust of the book. I'm getting the idea that the argument is similar to Kuhn and Stiner's good advice: "Generalizations about recent hunter-gatherers are most helpful when they reveal points of discordance between what we expect from historical experience and what seems to have gone on during the Pleistocene." Am I on the right track there? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably close...I'm sure reading the whole book would definitely help. Ultimately the most important message from the book is probably in the last section that I wrote (mentioning the paradigm shift)...the concept of monogamy being a social construct that breeds discontent when other possibilities not only existed previously but exist today and work better (when you read the book completely, then watch a show like The Bachelor or Battle of the Exes, it makes you think just how inane those shows are, but on a separate level from their original reality-show inanity).  I've only read it once, but I know a few others who have read it.  I might see what they think, if just so I can have another perspective other than my own. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)