Talk:Sex at Dawn

	This Books related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Sex at Dusk

Has anyone here read a book called "Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn" by Lynn Saxon? It is a critic of the arguments presented on Sex at Dawn. I've seem both endorsment and criticism about this book, with some saying that the authors of Sex at Dawn misinterpreted a lot of data, while others says that Sex at Dusk don't fare any better. There were also attacks on the background of both of the authors. So, yeah, it is kind of a hot topic, even to this day, 7 years later. Verossimio Espagnado (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Reception

Saxxon seems to have a political problem with the book, as does Barash. Both say that the conclusions of Sex at Dawn are not entirely wrong, but that humans "can choose the moral path" or something like that. This is not new, in fact as controversy can be traced back to the nineteenth century, more or less with Bachofen.

I think it is necessary to comment on the political context of this discussion. This sexual egalitarianism is known as "hetairism" and is an integral part of the concept of "primitive communism". The first mentions to this sexual egalitarianism are in "The Origin of the Family", by Engels. Bachofen's ideas are of great importance in this work. Later in time, this type of ideas of primitive sexual communism became popular in Marxist feminism, being supported by famous Marxist feminists such as Clara Zetkin, Alexandra Kollontai, Shulamit Firestone, Kate Millet, Gayle Rubin or Gisela Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg. .

Needless to say, these ideas have always scared and annoyed conservatives and various anti-communists. The work of Marshall Sahlins on the original affluent societies, Pierre Clastres on the origin of the State and the works of Claude Meillassoux on the origin of kinship as a function of domination have raised great controversies in conservative circles.

I think part of the controversy surrounding this book, especially criticism from people like Pinker, Barash or Saxxon, is an integral part of the older controversy about primitive communism, the sexual kind in this case. ^{— Unsigned, by: 190.174.81.105 / talk / contribs}

It doesn't really take much to trigger conservatives to be honest. And whether the problem Saxon has, I'm not sure how it could happen across those lines when AFAIU the main take home message is that actually prehistoric women were whores and not sluts.
Also, boy, If there is one big cohesive camp famous for "ideologically cutting corners".. that is in fact marxist historiographers (hell, I believe some of them even used the word "matriarchy" to just denote the absence of power imbalances)
This said, it was good to read this controversy is old as the hills. But while I seem to understand there is consensus around the fact that pre-neolithic societies were more egalitarian (be it in economic or sex-based terms), the "idyllic wonderland of sharing, long life, and non-violence" is the puzzling idea here. Particularly if it's not just our article to suck ass, but the book really engages in all these "was-ought" arguments.
The probably most ironic thing though, even from a political standpoint, is that for a book arguing that gender roles were all those relaxed and permissive there's surprisingly little promiscuity within them (I mean.. I'll grant I haven't read the book, but surely such a bombshell would have been covered everywhere?). Like, I get that with prehistory getting any evidence at all is rocket science (and when hunter-gathering has a life expectancy of 20-30 years society doesn't afford you much fulfilment) but at least with my 21st century mind I cannot imagine why if "anything went" then "anything didn't actually go". Surely oral and anal sex had already been discovered? And sex toys invented? Certainly some hot MSM or WSW action should have happened? Unless they are arguing that a man with no puss is like a sky without the sun... --Mirh (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Quinn

It would be nice to see here some discussion of his books (Ishmael, Story of B, Beyond Civilization). It is probably akin and ties into this.

Altough he does not talk about the concept of sex and families, but he delves deep into the broad concept of tribal vs. civilized societies (cultures), what in the last 10 thousand years the Neolithic revolution has changed in our culture, in terms of owning the land, the concept of human exceptionalism, depleting resources, and overpopulation. Hoarding of resouces, then someone "guarding" it, the concept of working for money. Adam and Eve gets interpreded as the Neolitic revolution, "knowing of good and bad" as moral absolutism (knowing the "one right way" or their "one true god"). Overpopulation as a positive feedback cycle etc.

This is a very broad topic and sometimes hard to see through it, hard to interpret or easy to misinterpret. 5.38.144.143 (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)balazs

This article still seems to be too uncritical of the book in question. I think its best that the article doesn't read as an ambivalent endorsement considering this anecdote on it's Wikipedia page.

"In contrast to the popular media reception, scholars have overwhelmingly reviewed Sex at Dawn negatively. Ryan originally tried to publish the book with academic publisher Oxford University Press where it was rejected after it failed the peer review process.[15]"

Obviously Wikipedia isn't always trustworthy, but we would do well to skim through the references in the criticism section in order to see what actual anthropologists are saying. On another note, I recently read an article that posits that human social evolution and the pair bond are inextricably linked which would punch a whole through the "free sex" hypothesis of the book. You will need a SAGE Pub account to access it though https://carta.anthropogeny.org/libraries/bibliography/pair-bonding-romantic-love-and-evolution-curious-case-homo-sapiens

I honestly think this page comes down way too lightly on the book, it has massive methodological errors ands spreads alot of disinformation. Beyond that, the author seems to be incredibly reductive to his critics from what I've experienced. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.197.229.95 / talk 02:42, 4 May 2021}

How is this not a draft?

It talks about something as controversial, diverse, and debated as sexuality in pre-civilizational and tribal societies.... lumps them all together, calls them communist hippie utopias and inserts virtually no citations it's dozens of claims. Can't people at least try to source? also agree with IP above 51.68.142.19 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Another erroneous claim made by both the book and this article is that infidelity rates indicate we are naturally non-monogamous. This is a misconception, as infidelity is actually fairly common in monogamous animals, and only around 10% of animals classified as monogamous actually mate for life (look up extra pair copulation on Wikipedia). Infact, humans have a comparatively low extra pair paternity rate in comparison with other monogamous mammals and birds. Granted, this can be chalked up to the fact that animals don't wear protection, but even still it indicates that we are not some outlier when it comes to unfaithfulness. I really think this article is way overdue for a rewrite. I would do it myself but I'm currently caught up with health problems and will be busy most of the month but I can drop some sources off later if anyone wants to take a crack at it. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.197.229.95 / talk 07:33, 5 May 2021}

" Another erroneous claim made by both the book and this article is that infidelity rates indicate we are naturally non-monogamous. "

The article makes no such claim, and while I haven't read the book, I doubt that your claim that the book does is accurate, either. In fact, I doubt that any of the people clamoring for a 'more critical rewrite' have read the book. The article says nothing about humans being 'naturally' this OR that. It questions the evolutionary advantage of monogamy among humans.

I am glad that none of you grumblers have managed to destroy this article with rewrites, as I found it quite interesting and I will probably read the book sometime. I am highly suspicious of the the people who are so determined to insist that cavemen were monogamous. The article clearly states that the cultural aspect of ancient fidelity are unknown, therefore it's all speculation. But it is GOOD speculation. Even someone with a meager understanding of evolutionary advantage should be able to understand that reciprocal sex between tribes would introduce new genes into tribes that would have otherwise been genetically 'closed' extended families. Any tribes that would have reciprocal sex would have a clear evolutionary advantage over ones that only breed within the tribe. That pressure alone would result in more polygamous tribes and fewer monogamous ones across ancient human populations over time.

The article simply does not say that the book is trying to say that polygamy is the 'natural' way, that is a completely fallacious claim. The article says that the book says that both ancient polygamy and modern monogamy would be social constructs, not 'natural' ones. The people harping over this article are obviously not RationalWiki aficionados, otherwise they would know that Rationalwiki does not deal in Appeal to Nature fallacies. In fact, attempts to portray this article as saying that polygamy is 'natural' and you don't like it because you think monogamy is 'natural' is pretty good evidence that YOU are the ones trying to inject Appeal to Nature fallacies into this article. Do you really think RationalWiki readers are stupid enough to not notice that your concerns hinge on a desire to not besmirch an imagined 'pious morality' of humans? That's the sort of thing that RationalWiki's right-wing enemies would try to do. The impetus behind this motive is transparently neo-reactionary.

As far as I can tell, every claim made by someone on this talk page wanting a rewrite is spurious. The only thing the article mentions that may be a mistake in the book is that 'chastity belts' were ever commonly used to prevent infidelity. The chastity belt article makes it clear that most historical depictions of them were satirical, and that they did not exist before the year 1500, and that when they were used, they were used to prevent masturbation, not infidelity. So if you're going to write anything more critical of the book in this article, its reference to chastity belts represents the entirety of your jurisdiction. FairDinkum (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok sorry

Ok sorry this took a while, but I would reccomend some of you read the book "Paleofantasy" by Marlene Zuk. It's about about of things, mainly diet, but it does talk about sex. Here's a passage discussing extra pair paternity

"The truth, however—insofar as we can tell—is much less sensational. The most unbiased research suggests that the real incidence of misassigned paternity in Western countries hovers around 1 percent, with a few studies pushing that number to 3 percent or nearly 4 percent. Even at the high end, that’s only one-tenth as common as conventional wisdom would have it. Obtaining a truly unbiased estimate is difficult because most people undergo paternity testing only if they have a reason to suspect a discrepancy between the purported father and the genetic one. As a result, using data from the companies that sell the at-home tests, for example, is certain to yield an overestimate of misassigned paternity"

Its a fun read and could be used for other articles, ill link a free copy that you can read online here https://b.booksvooks.com/fullbook/paleofantasy-what-evolution-really-tells-us-about-sex-diet-and-how-we-live-pdf.html?page=11

Anyways this will be my last contrib for a while, so I hope you guys end up revising this article soon. Peace ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.121.93.158 / talk / contribs}

Ok it's been a while,but here is an anthropological article about the existence of monogamy in primitive societies. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.121.93.158 / talk}

Bad vibes everywhere

Maybe I'm primed by all the other concerned reviews Wiki quoted but other than refuting some lowkey appeal to historic or religious tradition (something like arguing [Western] marriage is "natural") I really cannot understand what other solid contribution this book would have. Ludicrous amounts of scorny pop culture tangents?
And every odd sentence in our article screams exaggeration like they were written for comedic effect, except everything takes itself seriously and the punch line never drops (the length of the main content and criticism sections would really have better be reversed).
Then on top of that and what was already said (are bonobos the new alpha wolves?) I'd also have my own uneducated hunches:

• the worst case scenario for monogamy, is still just polygyny in literature. That's not exactly some turbo communist egalitarian mumbo jumbo utopia, is it?
• sperm competition, seriously? I may as well claim big head=big pelvis=big vagina=bigger penis.
• it's not even clear if partible paternity is a universal, nor if it is actually an effective vaccine against jealously (which I'd like point out, I think is bad and unjustified even under monogamy btw)
• be it as it may, and we accept the accumulated semen growth theory, then all women are all constantly pregnant. Shouldn't this huge thing be highlighted more than just indirectly in a brief similitude with amazonian tribes?
• all academic papers I found (aka I searched 2 minutes "prehistoric polygamy" on the Scholar rabbit hole) are leaps and bounds more nuanced and complex even with far more narrow hypotheses

--Mirh (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)