Sex at Dawn: what do you think?

[jimtron]

I'm about halfway through Sex at Dawn:The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, which is pretty fascinating. Curious to hear from other folks who've read this--especially those of you knowledgeable in evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, etc.

 

[Aepervius]

I was about to say sex in the morning is the best, but never mind.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Mm, seems to glorify the Golden Age a bit too much for me. Why is the past's sexual standard more human naturey than today's?

 

[lionking]

Can this be awarded the best, and most misleadng thread title of the month?

 

[shadron]

I've been re-reading "The Red Queen" lately; it's pretty dry nuts, bolts and history/genetics and not very titilating, but intricate. One would never suspect that sex would be a story of a thousand exceptions, inverted and re-inverted reasoning, and such conflict and deception, just to avoid parasites, but there you are.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm about halfway through Sex at Dawn:The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, which is pretty fascinating. Curious to hear from other folks who've read this--especially those of you knowledgeable in evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, etc.

I have not read it but hearing the author talk about it, it seems like most evolutionary psychology, reading your own beliefs into prehistory. With that and enough cherry picking you can show basically what you want.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'm about halfway through Sex at Dawn:The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, which is pretty fascinating. Curious to hear from other folks who've read this--especially those of you knowledgeable in evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, etc.

As turtle was hinting in more polite terms, I've yet to see _any_ evo-psych exercise being more than an exercise in pulling bare postulates out of the rear end, and invariably centered around _modern_ culture.

The only relevant question is: does the author have any evidence for anything he claims there? If so, by all means, please do share some of that.

 

[zooterkin]

I'm about halfway through Sex at Dawn:The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, which is pretty fascinating. Curious to hear from other folks who've read this--especially those of you knowledgeable in evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, etc.

The link doesn't work for me. Sound interesting, though not as interesting as Sex with Dawn...

 

[ponderingturtle]

As turtle was hinting in more polite terms, I've yet to see _any_ evo-psych exercise being more than an exercise in pulling bare postulates out of the rear end, and invariably centered around _modern_ culture.

The only relevant question is: does the author have any evidence for anything he claims there? If so, by all means, please do share some of that.

They also try to tell a narrative and in doing so have a highly simplified view of the world.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

They also try to tell a narrative and in doing so have a highly simplified view of the world.

I'd even let them have their narrative -- after all, it does seem to be a style that sells books and convinces people -- if they supported the main points with good data.

 

[JimBenArm]

Take ten paces, turn and...?????

 

[23_Tauri]

Can this be awarded the best, and most misleadng thread title of the month?

Perhaps someone needs to do an analysis of number of views with number of posts, to see if the ratio is dissimiliar to the normal range found in Randi threads. Because heck, I just clicked on it thinking "yeah! Definitely best in the first thing in the morning!" and I'm clearly not the only one. Although I have now posted, so maybe I just scuppered my own views to posts ratio theory thing.

Seriously now, I haven't read the book but I am interested. I read The Anatomy of Love by Helen Fisher years ago and found it fascinating. Although a slightly different subject area and not such a weighty tome, being concerned with evolutionary biology and sex I'm sure it would dove-tail neatly with Sex At Dawn.

 

[GStan]

Can this be awarded the best, and most misleadng thread title of the month?

or EVER!?!

 

[Polaris]

I've been re-reading "The Red Queen" lately; it's pretty dry nuts, bolts and history/genetics and not very titilating, but intricate. One would never suspect that sex would be a story of a thousand exceptions, inverted and re-inverted reasoning, and such conflict and deception, just to avoid parasites, but there you are.

You're more tenacious than I am. I put it down after about 1/3, having expected something more like Sperm Wars. I got the gist of it.

And for the record, sex at night is better anyway. No morning breath or eye-boogers.

 

[tyr_13]

Mm, seems to glorify the Golden Age a bit too much for me. Why is the past's sexual standard more human naturey than today's?

That is a claim that would need support.

However, I'm not about to assume that say, the Golden Age's ideas of sexuality were driven by social standards and very disconnect from human nature while today's standards are more in line with human nature and not as much driven by social standards. Perhaps neither is really in line with human nature and very much social standards imposing norms on people, perhaps both are fairly close to human nature, or anywhere in between.

 

[I Ratant]

Can this be awarded the best, and most misleadng thread title of the month?

.
Car up the street has a license plate holder...
"Happiness is the northeast coast
.
.
..
and the crack of dawn".
.
It's on Dawn's car.

 

[I Ratant]

You're more tenacious than I am. I put it down after about 1/3, having expected something more like Sperm Wars. I got the gist of it.

And for the record, sex at night is better anyway. No morning breath or eye-boogers.

.
I put no qualifiers at all on the when.
Any time is better than not at all.

 

[coalesce]

Am I the only one who thought of Dawn Wells?

Michael

 

[jimtron]

I was about to say sex in the morning is the best, but never mind.

Why is the past's sexual standard more human naturey than today's?

The book criticizes the common view that humans are naturally/historically inclined to be monogamous and pair-bound. It argues that that's more a result of cultural influence.

Can this be awarded the best, and most misleadng thread title of the month?

Yes, thanks!

I have not read it but hearing the author talk about it, it seems like most evolutionary psychology, reading your own beliefs into prehistory. With that and enough cherry picking you can show basically what you want.

Actually, the book is critical of evolutionary psychology and applying modern biases to history (the authors use the term "Flintstonization" for this).

The only relevant question is: does the author have any evidence for anything he claims there? If so, by all means, please do share some of that.

I'm still reading it, but I don't think the authors claim to have hard evidence, but their analysis seems intelligent so far.

They also try to tell a narrative and in doing so have a highly simplified view of the world. ]

Do you have an example?

This review explains some of the points made by the book.

 

[RussDill]

I've been re-reading "The Red Queen" lately; it's pretty dry nuts, bolts and history/genetics and not very titilating, but intricate. One would never suspect that sex would be a story of a thousand exceptions, inverted and re-inverted reasoning, and such conflict and deception, just to avoid parasites, but there you are.

That book must make a strange turn...first you think it's about the history of the Tudors...