Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
History of Feminism
In reply to the discussion: Well, I succeeded in getting you all labeled anti science! [View all]MadrasT
(7,237 posts)12. Oh look.
Here's a article from the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology that shreds the beloved happy-fucking-bonobo thesis posited by 'Sex At Dawn' (the book that started the bonobo madness amongst the evo-psych-loving men that love to hold up "BONOBOS!!!" as solid evidence that women should fuck them more).
It's a review of a whole book that shreds the "bonobo" nonsense as invalid bullshit from (OMG) even an evolutionary perspective.
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10611616.pdf
The Myth of Promiscuity
A review of Lynn Saxon, Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn.
The book Sex at Dawn was published in 2010 and quickly became a best-seller,
receiving kudos from well-known personages such as sex advice columnist Dan Savage,
and primatologist Frans de Waal (Savage calling it the ―most important book on human
sexuality‖ since Kinsey‘s 1948 Sexual Behavior of the Human Male1
; de Waal dubbing it
an ―exciting book‖ that raises issues that will ―need debating over and over‖2
). Sex at Dawn appears to have struck a chord with a certain starry- eyed segment of the reading public, as
well as some academics who should know better.
For those unfamiliar with Sex at Dawn (Ryan and Jethá, 2010), the main thrust of
the book is its claim that, contrary to conventional scientific wisdom—called the ―standard
narrative of evolutionary psychology‖—pair-bonding, sexual jealousy, a male concern with
paternity certainty, and host of other related traits are not ―natural‖ components of evolved
human sexuality. Rather, they are the product of the social arrangements attending the
emergence of agriculture beginning only about 10,000 years ago. Our true nature, the
authors of Sex at Dawn argue, is one closer to that of what they think bonobo sexuality is,
i.e., fluid, promiscuous sexual relations between all individuals, with little sexual conflict to
speak of. Ryan and Jethá argue that the evidence points to the conclusion that promiscuous
sexuality characterized our ancestral hunter-gatherer past, and that those evolutionary
scientists who formulated and uphold the ―standard narrative‖ are mistakenly projecting
modern, post-agricultural mores onto our ancestors as well as contemporary small-scale
societies.
While the book continues in its lay popularity, it has not achieved a position of
respect, or even much attention, from researchers who would likely be associated with the
so-called standard narrative. A call to arms suggested in a review of Sex at Dawn has gone virtually unheeded (Ellsworth, 2011). That is, until now. Independent scholar Lynn Saxon has taken up the task of writing a book-length meticulously researched critique of Sex at Dawn, titled Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn. As will be shown
below, Saxon‘s critical analysis proves to be a thoroughly withering one, exposing not only
Sex at Dawn’s many, many misunderstandings, errors, omissions, and perhaps intentional
mistreatment of the ―evidence‖ of our ostensibly promiscuous sexual nature, but also an
ideological agenda buried in the mire of shoddy science. A chapter-by-chapter review of
the numerous problems addressed in the book would necessitate a grossly inappropriate
number of pages, and I therefore confine the forgoing to discussion of some of the more or
less overarching theoretical and ideological issues confronted in Sex at Dusk.
(snip)
In this analysis, Sex at Dawn has been caught with its ideological pants down.
―[R]ather than a plausible potential explanation of our evolution, [Dawn]…reveals itself as
a contemporary middle-class, child-free, sex-obsessed, male fantasy projected back onto
prehistory‖ (p. 209). ―The shiny, superficially egalitarian wrapping of ‗shared sex‘…makes
it no less of a male fantasy‖ (p. 201). Sex at Dusk raises the question of just how much of
what makes Sex at Dawn such an inaccurate portrayal of human sexuality can really be
chalked up to naivety on the part of its authors. After all, the sources cited by Ryan and
Jethá to support their claims are the very same sources that, examined more closely, Saxon
uses to refute them. I have always suspected that the popular appeal of Sex at Dawn lay in
the widespread tendency of people to see the world as they wish it to be, rather than how it
really is. If this is correct, Saxon‘s book will surely be anathema to the romantic devotees
of the Sex at Dawn story. But for those who wish to see the record set straight, or merely
learn more about who we are and where we came from, Sex at Dusk is sure to be
rewarding.
A review of Lynn Saxon, Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn.
The book Sex at Dawn was published in 2010 and quickly became a best-seller,
receiving kudos from well-known personages such as sex advice columnist Dan Savage,
and primatologist Frans de Waal (Savage calling it the ―most important book on human
sexuality‖ since Kinsey‘s 1948 Sexual Behavior of the Human Male1
; de Waal dubbing it
an ―exciting book‖ that raises issues that will ―need debating over and over‖2
). Sex at Dawn appears to have struck a chord with a certain starry- eyed segment of the reading public, as
well as some academics who should know better.
For those unfamiliar with Sex at Dawn (Ryan and Jethá, 2010), the main thrust of
the book is its claim that, contrary to conventional scientific wisdom—called the ―standard
narrative of evolutionary psychology‖—pair-bonding, sexual jealousy, a male concern with
paternity certainty, and host of other related traits are not ―natural‖ components of evolved
human sexuality. Rather, they are the product of the social arrangements attending the
emergence of agriculture beginning only about 10,000 years ago. Our true nature, the
authors of Sex at Dawn argue, is one closer to that of what they think bonobo sexuality is,
i.e., fluid, promiscuous sexual relations between all individuals, with little sexual conflict to
speak of. Ryan and Jethá argue that the evidence points to the conclusion that promiscuous
sexuality characterized our ancestral hunter-gatherer past, and that those evolutionary
scientists who formulated and uphold the ―standard narrative‖ are mistakenly projecting
modern, post-agricultural mores onto our ancestors as well as contemporary small-scale
societies.
While the book continues in its lay popularity, it has not achieved a position of
respect, or even much attention, from researchers who would likely be associated with the
so-called standard narrative. A call to arms suggested in a review of Sex at Dawn has gone virtually unheeded (Ellsworth, 2011). That is, until now. Independent scholar Lynn Saxon has taken up the task of writing a book-length meticulously researched critique of Sex at Dawn, titled Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn. As will be shown
below, Saxon‘s critical analysis proves to be a thoroughly withering one, exposing not only
Sex at Dawn’s many, many misunderstandings, errors, omissions, and perhaps intentional
mistreatment of the ―evidence‖ of our ostensibly promiscuous sexual nature, but also an
ideological agenda buried in the mire of shoddy science. A chapter-by-chapter review of
the numerous problems addressed in the book would necessitate a grossly inappropriate
number of pages, and I therefore confine the forgoing to discussion of some of the more or
less overarching theoretical and ideological issues confronted in Sex at Dusk.
(snip)
In this analysis, Sex at Dawn has been caught with its ideological pants down.
―[R]ather than a plausible potential explanation of our evolution, [Dawn]…reveals itself as
a contemporary middle-class, child-free, sex-obsessed, male fantasy projected back onto
prehistory‖ (p. 209). ―The shiny, superficially egalitarian wrapping of ‗shared sex‘…makes
it no less of a male fantasy‖ (p. 201). Sex at Dusk raises the question of just how much of
what makes Sex at Dawn such an inaccurate portrayal of human sexuality can really be
chalked up to naivety on the part of its authors. After all, the sources cited by Ryan and
Jethá to support their claims are the very same sources that, examined more closely, Saxon
uses to refute them. I have always suspected that the popular appeal of Sex at Dawn lay in
the widespread tendency of people to see the world as they wish it to be, rather than how it
really is. If this is correct, Saxon‘s book will surely be anathema to the romantic devotees
of the Sex at Dawn story. But for those who wish to see the record set straight, or merely
learn more about who we are and where we came from, Sex at Dusk is sure to be
rewarding.
Ever since "Sex At Dawn" was published, I've thought that people who want to shove the bonobo bullshit down other people's throats are those who themselves feel sexually guilty/repressed and need the "bonobo" excuse to justify getting their groove on.
Yo, if you love to fuck, just own it... you don't need to point at bonobos as an excuse or a justification for it. Or to try to twist other people in to wanting to fuck you more. It's lame.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
31 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No you didn't. What happened in that thread was that a lot of asses got a chance to show off
Squinch
Feb 2014
#1
all the jury saw, and surprisingly not the men arguing their position because they need to hold onto
seabeyond
Feb 2014
#5
first i was gonna fall in love with juror one, then one and three... screw it, love 'em all. nt
seabeyond
Feb 2014
#4
Thanks for the Kinks. Had forgotten that gem. Not to mention thanks for all the info.
Tuesday Afternoon
Feb 2014
#25
ISM.... loved yours. madrast, gonna love reading yours, first i need a hot fudge sundae
seabeyond
Feb 2014
#13
lack of criticial thinking, similar to how some used the darwin to try to push their libertarian
JI7
Feb 2014
#14
I've had this argument so many times I have "heteronormative bullshit" on the tip of my tongue.
MadrasT
Feb 2014
#23
that is what they did, at the same time, accusing us of being the ones doing it.
Tuesday Afternoon
Feb 2014
#28
The Evo-psych proponents used chimpanzees to justify "rape as adaptive as adaptive behavior"
ismnotwasm
Feb 2014
#29