Sex! I thought that would get your attention. This blog is about divorce and family law. Do you think that sex has anything to do with that? Of course, it does — a whole lot of it. That being said — and established, in my opinion — I firmly posit that the better we understand sexuality, our psychology and our history (and prehistory) the better we are better able to understand why we feel the way we do. And maybe the less likely we are to do something stupid– and are you surprised that there is a lot of stupidity in divorce and family law?
In their book, Sex at Dawn, co-Authors and spouses, Christopher Ryan, Ph.D. and Cacilda Jetha, M.D. , choose to explode the conventional view on the prehistory of human sexuality and human sexual evolution. They begin with setting out the Standard Narrative of human sexual evolution, that being: Human females jealously guard their sexual activity due to the costs of pregnancy and seek to attract genetically superior men with whom to have children, while freewheeling males seek to spread their genetics among as many willing partners as possible, all the while they jealously guard their mates to ensure the paternity of any offspring. The authors take this narrative and begin to look at primate sexuality, alternative explanations of female and male behavior, and even the role of agriculture in shaping our present conventions.
If you are ready for a great read, think about this one. You’ll learn to ask the question about why among primates we are purportedly the only monogamous species. You’ll learn about why we all know what that scene from When Harry Met Sally is simulating without having to be told and without any context. You’ll learn about why human males and females differ so drastically from primates in relation to their anatomy. In short, you’ll be surprised about who are and who we may have been. You might also be shocked about some of their ultimate conclusions, but I am not going to spoil those here. In the divorce business, we are not surprised.
Sex at Dawn is a New York Times Best Seller, one of NPR’s Best Books for 2010, and an Audible.com Best Book of 2010.
Read it and let me know what you think!
3 Comments
You must have misread the book. The authors state there are no monogamous primates, INCLUDING homo sapiens.
I think I should have clarified my position by saying we are the only “purportedly” monogamous species. I do believe the books does conclude that by evolution and temperament we are not made to be monogamous. So in a sense, I think when I wrote that sentence I was trying to set the stage that although many believe we are the only monogamous primates, that this in and of itself should make us question whether that can possibly be true or are we trying to make our species an exception, when it is really not. Make sense?
On second reading, I realize what you meant by “purportedly”. When I read it quickly, it seemed to say that the book explains why mankind is monagamous and other primates are not. The answer is that man is NOT monagamous, but the powers that be have propped up the idea that not only is man monagamous, but that man is NATURALLY monagamous. This is not true.
What we both can agree is that this is a thought provoking book that may change the way that you look at life. What this book isn’t being given enough credit for is that it’s the first book to give an explanation for homosexuality that makes sense. Many people who are not opposed to gay rights still think that homosexuality must be a mistake because it in and of itself does not lead to reproduction. But if pomiscuous sex helped small communities of early man bond together and co-operate, it makes sense that homosexuality in some members might help the group bond closer together and co-operate better, thus helping the entire group survive. Thus, homosexuality became an asset even if gay people didn’t directly pass their genes to the next generation, and in many cases they probably did.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying and I’m sorry if my original remark sounded snarky.