Book: Sex at Dawn

River (and any other interested readers), you might also appreciate a book called "The Transformation" by George Leonard. It's an older book, now out of print, but likely copies are available secondhand via Amazon or such. I got a copy for a special friend a couple years back.

Here's a link to an interview I found with George. He was a senior editor for Look magazine, and I believe a VP of the Easlen Institute a few years back. Interesting thinker and writer.

http://www.intuition.org/txt/leonard.htm
 
River said:
Is it not obvious that the taboo on non-monogamy ("enforced monogamy") actually creates crucial conditions of scarcity in the love-sex domain? If we overtrow this cultural norm, we likely won't have so much of that addictive seeking after surrogate needs (as I like to call them).
Click to expand...

I think it is. :) I recently read an excellent blog post on exactly this idea here.

I don't think that jealousy IS "such a strong emotion" that vast litanies of evolutionary apology need to be written for it. It's nothing more than the fear/anger of losing something you own/have, and when we cease to feel as if we own our partners, we cease to feel jealousy. But we live in a culture of ownership that cultivates and idealizes jealousy. The culture of compulsory monogamy constantly sends messages that jealousy is the natural result of your partner "straying" (as opposed to the jealous person's own insecurities), and so we're all strongly conditioned from a very young age to feel it, and then attribute it to other's behavior.

This conditioning allows mates to control each other by telling each other that they're jealous--- since jealousy is always supposed to be due to external influence, only a change in one's *partner's* (not one's own) behavior can address it. Thus jealousy is a cultural tool for monogamy enforcement and power in relationships. But at its root, it's nothing but fear of loss, not much different from fear of losing your house or car.
 
Ready2Fly said:
It's nothing more than the fear/anger of losing something you own/have, and when we cease to feel as if we own our partners, we cease to feel jealousy. But we live in a culture of ownership that cultivates and idealizes jealousy. The culture of compulsory monogamy constantly sends messages that jealousy is the natural result of your partner "straying" (as opposed to the jealous person's own insecurities), and so we're all strongly conditioned from a very young age to feel it, and then attribute it to other's behavior.

This conditioning allows mates to control each other by telling each other that they're jealous--- since jealousy is always supposed to be due to external influence, only a change in one's *partner's* (not one's own) behavior can address it. Thus jealousy is a cultural tool for monogamy enforcement and power in relationships. But at its root, it's nothing but fear of loss, not much different from fear of losing your house or car.
Click to expand...

Wow, R2F, I love how clearly you worded your post. You've really simplified things and made your viewpoint easy to understand (and hard to argue with)! Very, very cool. Thank you!
 
I haven't read through this entire thread, but have skimmed much of it, and have read the book thoroughly. It put into words very clearly many of the things I already knew, and excellently explained their conclusions, many of which I agreed with before I even read it, just from my own study of humanity and anthropology (both physical and cultural).

I'm very curious how many of you have recommended this book to those you know and love, but who are not aware of your polyamorous lives. I really want to tell everyone about this book, but I'm a little nervous that it'll "out" us. I have recommended it to my father, who has had fidelity issues for many years, and tremendous guilt because of it. I hope it'll help him understand himself a little better, and maybe relieve some of the guilt.
 
SS, I just searched my e-book and the word polyamory only appears once in Sex at Dawn, the word polyamorous does not appear at all. It's basically about anthropology. Anyone would find it interesting.

And besides, just because you recommend a book doesn't automatically mean that you subscribe to everything in it -- and no one could really make any assumptions about how you live your life by what you recommend to read. I mean, all you have to say is, "Here's this interesting book, check it out."
 
nycindie said:
SS, I just searched my e-book and the word polyamory only appears once in Sex at Dawn, the word polyamorous does not appear at all. It's basically about anthropology. Anyone would find it interesting.

And besides, just because you recommend a book doesn't automatically mean that you subscribe to everything in it -- and no one could really make any assumptions about how you live your life by what you recommend to read. I mean, all you have to say is "here's this interesting book, check it out."
Click to expand...

You're right, of course, and I know this... I even studied anthropology, so I've got an "excuse." I'm still nervous about discussing my private life publicly. I guess deep down I'm afraid of being judged, just as I know my wife is.
 
SvartSvensk said:
You're right, of course, and I know this... I even studied anthropology, so I've got an "excuse." I'm still nervous about discussing my private life publicly. I guess deep down I'm afraid of being judged, just as I know my wife is.
Click to expand...
But why do you think you have to discuss your private life at all, just because you like a book?
 
nycindie said:
But why do you think you have to discuss your private life at all, just because you like a book?
Click to expand...

Because people are going to ask. Declining to discuss it is tantamount to admission of guilt (despite what the 5th amendment may say), and I absolutely despise lying.
 
SvartSvensk said:
Because people are going to ask,.
Click to expand...

I agree. People will want to know why you are interested, for sure. That is completely normal. If someone suggested I read a book on cooking I would naturally assume that they like to cook and think I will be interested. Just the title of Sex At Dawn and the general premise would invoke a lot of discussion as to why you were personally interested in it. It's too bad we live in a world where this even matters, of course. It should be as innocent as recommending a sci-fi novel.
 
Well, if someone knows that BlackSwedestudied anthropology, he's got a built-in reason for being interested in the book. And if asked, it wouldn't be lying to cite that aspect of it to explain what drew him to it. But I think the worry is unnecessary. I read mostly non-fiction. If I find a fascinating book about cannibalism, my friends are not going to assume I'm now eating people. Sex at Dawn is about human sexuality, not specifically polyamory; anyone interested in anthropology, sex, and sexuality might like it.
 
Last edited:
nycindie said:
I read mostly non-fiction. If I find a fascinating book about cannibalism, my friends are not going to assume I'm now eating people.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. But people will likely ask you why you are interested in this. BlackSwede's concern is that he would feel compelled to explain his reasons, which might border on divulging deeper aspects of his private life to fully do so... if I am right, that is. BlackSwede?
 
It's not about polyamory, per se, but Sex at Dawn argues that monogamy is not natural, i.e., innate, for people, but a very complex product that is created, mediated and enforced by the human cultures we exist within. The evidence the authors use for their argument is from anthropology and other disciplines.

So while reading or recommending Sex at Dawn does not automatically out one as polyamorous, it definitely outs one as having a possible interest in non-monogamy.

Now, should this be the case? No. Anyone can and should read this book, if they want to. But I would be careful about recommending it to someone I did not want to get ideas about my inclinations. In fact, I use the book as a marker of my interests on my dating sites and, in combination with the rest of my profile, it works really well that way.
 
MonoVCPHG said:
I totally agree, but people will likely ask you why you are interested in this. Swede's concern is that he would feel compelled to explain his reasons, which might border on divulging deeper aspects of his private life to fully do so... if I am right, that is.
Click to expand...

Yes. I mean, I know I could cite the anthropological reasons, but I suspect I would still get questions regarding my own sexuality, which I am loath to answer in a public manner. To certain friends, in private, I am absolutely comfortable discussing it.
 
SvartSvensk said:
I know I could cite the anthropological reasons, but I suspect I would still get questions regarding my own sexuality, which I am loath to answer in a public manner. To certain friends, in private, I am absolutely comfortable discussing it.
Click to expand...

In my case, my response to this or similar questions would be (Socrates style) another question: Don't you wonder why we have such a problem with divorce, broken homes and families? I do. This book poses some interesting theories.
 
As I'm getting older, I'm getting better at deflecting questions I deem to be overly personal. Don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty open person, but there ARE most definitely situations where I disclose a lot less of myself, whether because it's an inappropriate venue (work, for example) for certain topics, or because I don't feel I know the person well enough to want to get into any discussions (i.e., defense) of my life choices.

I have an interesting question. Why do we Americans seem to think it's okay to ask ANYTHING about someone else, and honestly expect for them to answer? Where did our lack of personal privacy go? Or did we never have it?

I'm reading What French Women Know. (Recommended in a thread on here. Was it you NYCindie? My memory fails me.) I am finding it increasingly interesting. They talk about the difference in self-disclosure between Americans and the French. The author, an American who married a French man, talks about having gone to a dinner party in the US where the hostess, as an "icebreaker," asked everyone to stand and give an example of the most life-changing experience they've had, and one woman said, "When I had my first multiple orgasms." Now, mind you, I love to talk about orgasms, but since when did delving into people's personal and most private experiences become a party game? The author states that if you did that in France, the women would look at you like you just asked her to strip naked and dance down main street (paraphrasing, LOL).

So I've been mastering deflective questions and answers. (Studying counseling has helped this ability a lot.)

Q: "Why would you read a book that talks about monogamy not being natural?"

A: "That's an interesting question. Why do you ask?"

And for the people who truly cannot take a hint and persist:

"That's a very personal question, and I don't think I know you well enough to get that personal."

I need a good response for the truly rude person, though, something suitably elegant and cutting.
 
You can ask deflecting questions all day long, or refuse to discuss your personal life with acquaintances and colleagues, but your friends and family will eventually get to the point of, "Wait, you don't actually believe this, do you? Does that mean you're non-monogamous???", and you simply cannot answer questions with other questions forever.
 
I think the point that Minxxa is making is that you don't have to answer anything you don't want to. And if they ask, so what? If they're unsatisfied with no answer, or a less than detailed answer, so what? What's the worst that can happen? They are suspicious of you? When do adults live their lives and stand on their own, apart from the people we're related to and friends with. I could see if it is something that would affect your livelihood, but if anyone disowns me, or decides not to be my friend because of the way I'm living my life, then good riddance.
 
SvartSvensk said:
You can ask deflecting questions all day long, or refuse to discuss your personal life with acquaintances and colleagues, but your friends and family will eventually get to the point of, "Wait, you don't actually believe this, do you? Does that mean you're non-monogamous?" and you simply cannot answer questions with other questions forever.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you read books on cannibalism, too, then you can say, "I'm also reading this book on cannibalism. Do you think I'm going to try to eat you, too?"

:)

I read so many books that if my family thought I believed in every concept I read about, it wouldn't make any sense, because many of the ideas I read about are conflicting. And for myself, I would think that someone was discussing a new topic because it was new, and interesting to discuss, and a concept they hadn't thought of, and it inspires some debate or consideration. As in, "Hey, I'm reading this book about X, it's really interesting." I wouldn't automatically think that because someone is reading about X it means they believe in X, want to do X, or even really LIKE X. I would just think X seemed like an interesting subject to them.

Your family might very well be the type that thinks if you read X you want to do X. Or maybe you're projecting that's what they would think because them making that connection is the concern that you have.

But honestly, if someone said, "You don't really believe in that do you?" I'd ask, "Why would you think that?"

There's really no way for them to answer that and not sound ridiculous.

But everybody has their own comfort levels and needs within their families.
 
SvartSvensk said:
I'm very curious how many of you have recommended this book to those you know and love but who are not aware of your polyamorous lives. I really want to tell everyone about this book, but I'm a little nervous that it'll "out" us.
Click to expand...

Hey, BlackSwede, I bet 99.99% of married people have had to come to terms with occasional attractions to other people, and the jealousy around that. Whether they act on this by cheating or opening their marriage, most couples have to come to terms with being hot for others from time to time. Maybe they try to hide, deny and bury the feelings (in themselves, or suspecting it in their partner). This book could be helpful to anyone wanting to have successful relationships, imo.

Pretty much everyone I know, knows I am poly (and bi... fewer of them know how kinky I am). Most of my friends are gay, bi, queer, transgendered, or at least open-minded about alternative lovestyles, and many are also poly... and kinky too.
 
Critiques of the book forwarded to me:

http://novelactivist.com/blog/sex-at-dawn/

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/127227181

http://ryviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/06/christopher-ryan-cacilda-jethas-sex-at.html

http://shethought.com/forum/books-you-are-reading/sex-at-dawn//

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/10/sex-at-dawn-is-right.html

Adding a few additional:
http://www.pajiba.com/pajiba_dirty_talk/damn-dirty-apes-pajiba-dirty-talk.php

http://jseliger.com/2010/07/21/sex-at-dawn-christopher-ryan-and-cacilda-jetha/

What's interesting to me that the majority of the critiques agree with the fundamental thesis but have problems with lack of rigor in terms of representing existing research or misusing a few bits out of context. The narrative still convinces...

Interestingly, only a couple of the above are experts in the field. No peep out of the Evolutionary Psychologists (like David Buss) or Evo Biologists.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top