Sooo, under the category of Unnecessary Awk, has anyone else read Sex at Dawn? I mean, anyone willing to ADMIT it? If so, I'm going to need your reactions, if any, since mine basically boil down to uncomfortable fidgeting and vague feelings of hopelessness. Which are pleasant. Always the mood I'm going for in response to my recreational reading.
Here's the deal with this book: first of all, it's under the category of anthropology/evolutionary what-have-you. You know, old shit. How did sex USED to work. That kind of thing. It's not, like, a modern-day how-to or anything. So you can relax if you were starting to get squirelly on that front.
Here's the deal with this book: first of all, it's under the category of anthropology/evolutionary what-have-you. You know, old shit. How did sex USED to work. That kind of thing. It's not, like, a modern-day how-to or anything. So you can relax if you were starting to get squirelly on that front.
(I hope someone was fired with extreme prejudice over this cover art, because SRSLY)
If I had to awkwardly summarize the (married) authors' main points, I would say they are: (they are these? I don't know why I even USE colons, because I'm clearly unqualified)
*Back in the day, humans lived communally and shared everything, including sexual partners and children
*Our hardware and software is still sort of wired for that
*Therefore our current Western version of monogamy and the nuclear family is sort of a bitch to maintain
Right. Well then. The authors don't really give any SOLUTIONS to what appears to be a giant XXX FAIL, other than the implication that we Chill the Fuck Out on the idea that most people are fundamentally built for some type of sexual novelty.
I don't know. On the one hand, I really liked the way the authors explained the history of tribal living--how when everyone takes care of each other equally, it doesn't matter who's children are whose and you're better off being bonded to as many adults as possible, and therefore promiscuity makes total sense.
On the OTHER hand, this shit is depressing! If we may rejoin the REAL WORLD for a moment, that's not us! So...what? Monogamy is always going to leave us slightly lacking? I guess we just accept the fundamental mismatch of our bodies/minds and our current environment? AGAIN? Pfft. Maybe I read too much evolutionary/primal/paleo shit in the health and fitness sphere, I don't know. All I know is that theme is TIRED. And also, I hate hate HATE the "good old days/everything used to be GREAT and now it SUCKS!" worldview.
I don't mean to imply that I didn't enjoy the book or get anything out of it. In fact, it's probably the most thought-provoking thing I've read in a long time. I do recommend it. Unless you're suffering from some sort of non-specific...BRITTLENESS, as I appear to be.
Well, anyway, if you've read it, let me know what you thought. And if you HAVEN'T read it, do you give two shits about our evolutionary past, from a behavioral standpoint? Would you ever consider admitting that you read a SEX BOOK on your BLOG, which your SISTER reads?
(it's not really a SEX book! It's...HISTORY!)
(NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH READING SEX BOOKS!)
27 comments:
I haven't read it, but I have read about the general concept.
I don't think it's necessarily saying "everything used to be GREAT" so much as, monogamy is a religious construct / disease-avoidance construct / etc. Plus, now there's birth control so women don't risk childbirth/death every time they Do It.
I think consensual non-monogamy works quite well for a lot more people than we might realize.
Ahem.
Yay, someone commented! I was afraid it was going to be all chirping crickets. Heh.
Speaking of consentual (HOW DO YOU SPELL THAT WORD?) non-monogamy, there's a documentary short on HBO right now called "Quadrangle", where a daughter is basically interviewing her mother and father, who swapped spouses with another couple when the daughter was growing up in the 70s. They ended up divorcing each other and marrying the other person. The parents are obviously wicked uncomfortable talking to the daughter about it, which makes it even more hilarious.
I am of the opinion that we are evolutionally (?) hard-wired for non-monogamy. I'm not sure there IS much we can do about it except keep evolving towards monogamy. It may take another few thousand years.
I think about this shit basically all the time. How I eat, sleep, exercise, shit even how I parent, it seems fundamentally relevant. But just because we used to behave a certain way for tens of thousands of years, it doesn't necessarily make that the better way. But understanding the animal nature of our selves, and our evolutionary history gives insight into what we feel and why we struggle with certain things.
I haven't read the book, but it sounds interesting. I might have to pick it up. Bonus of reading it on my Nook; no one can see the title and ask me what it's about, so I can read it at work!
I don't really have a defined opinion on the evolution and monogamy thing. I can see what they are saying, but not sure I buy into it, although I do not begrudge people who are in consensual (holy crap, that IS a doozy to spell) non-monogamous relationship. It's the people who use this kind of thing as an excuse to cheat/for their cheating that bug me.
I haven't read the book, but I have always felt like strict monogamy is a very new idea for us humans.
If I may be totally honest here, I actually think "open" relationships are best.
However.
I THINK this. I can come to this conclusion RATIONALLY. I see great value in a committed couple who are allowed to have other -- less LIFE-LONG significant types -- mates to fulfill the other things that The One cannot fill alone. It would take a lot of pressure off of us to be everything for someone, you know?
Of course, EVERYONE has to be 100% honest with themselves and each other and be totally on board with it to actually have this work as wonderfully as I think it could. And that is not very likely.
But. I think, in reality, my HEART would have a helluva time with it. Maybe, maybe not. But I am not ready to make the leap to find out.
Thoughts? Have I just freaked everyone out?
Sounds like a history book to me. I have heard similar things before, but I'm meh on it.
That was then, this is now, and it just seems like a choice to me at this point.
Tess - dammit I wish I got HBO! That documentary thing sounds AWESOME.
Now that Quadrangle? I would watch that.
I'm adding this to our book club list RIGHT NOW. The ladies are going to have a HAY DAY with this. I'll report back...
Tess, I LOVE this post! I can't believe you thought it would be awkward! What are the internets for if not for discussing potentially embarrassing/awkward stuff in relative anonymity? And just to prove how BREEZY I am about airing very private opinions online, my church going, non-cheating self will admit that I nonetheless mostly agree with what Artemesia said. Complete monogamy is a hard, hard thing to maintain, even if you love The One passionately and devotedly. Maybe there are a lot of marriages that could be saved if they were both more open to... openness. That said, reality bites, and we're all so (newly) hardwired to believe that the only real love is monogamous love that there's probably not a one of us out here who would in reality be totally fine with our partner seeking A Little Something More outside of our relationship, be it emotional or sexual. And vice versa. So... I don't know what the solution is. Except maybe to admit that EVERYONE thinks about some form of cheating, sometimes?
I've thought about this quite a bit too and think the same thing that has been expressed by other commenters--that yes, we are probably not really meant to be monogamous. And when I make it personal and think about how I'd feel about having an open relationship with my husband, I still *think* it could work out ok, but I'm not at all sure, given our upbringings in this culture which expects monogamy.
On the one hand, it would lighten the load when I am NOT feeling like screwing around with my husband, and would give him an out. On the flip side, I am only human and get bored too and a little variety might be really nice.
HOWEVER. Almost immediately after having those thoughts, I begin to doubt whether that indicates there is something wrong with my marriage, since that is the standard to which marriages are held--that they be endlessly exciting or that both partners should work to keep it as exciting as possible. See also: sex becomes WORK instead of FUN.
Oh man, this is awesome! There have been several times lately I've wanted to do a little airing on my blog but opted not to for various reasons so I'll use this time to comment on your post instead!
I've had LOTS of thoughts over the past six months or so about monogamy and how tightly I held onto my virginity. It's a decision, despite my Christian beliefs, that I would go back and change in a heartbeat. Not to say I should've whored it up but I regret it.
Sometimes the thought of only knowing what it's like to be with one person is suffocating. And that's not to say my sex life isn't satisfying (because I know you wanted to know about that Tess!).
I've told B this before and his response was "well, it was your choice to wait." And it's true but it doesn't stop my mind from still wandering sometimes.
So I have to agree that perhaps we're not hard-wired for monogamy but make that choice and go with it. And yeah, what Artemisia and Sarah said. :)
Whoa, great comments guys! I should maybe do a follow-up on this, since I have more thoughts on YOUR thoughts and also since my boss in on Spring Break. Heh.
I haven't read it, but I thought about the communal raising of children thing a lot when I was home on maternity leave with my first child. I was tired, overwhelmed, and very lonely after my mom left. I really understood for the first time how counter to our fundamental social animal mentality it was for one parent to stay home alone with a child all day without company or help. With my second child it was different because we had moved someplace where there were lots of SAH and WAH parents for me to interact with and my parents had moved close as well. It was a 100% better experience.
As for the monogamy thing, I have read that it's not hard wired, but frankly I have no interest in "swinging" with anyone I know. I guess I'm not hanging out in places with hot men ;-)
ACK now I'm commenting again after reading more comments, sorry about the comment faux pas, but I wanted to say that I think some of my lack of interest in swinging is due to the fact that I have a toddler and a 8 year old and what I mostly fantasize about is sleep ;-)
Also, I didn't get married until I was 30 and although I didn't sleep around like a groupie or anything, I feel like I experienced enough to wonder about what I might have missed out on. Plus I'm 40 and "ancient peoples" were likely dead by the time they were my age, so they never reached the point where their hormones chilled the hell out. Who knows?
Ooo, that does sound sort of interesting/upsetting! I'm already getting interested and upset and I haven't even read it! My GUESS is that I'd have that same "Fine, but what are we supposed to DO about it NOW?" reaction.
I did read this book. I didn't really take it as a "things were better then and suck now" kind of thing. To me it was more of a "monogamy is hard for some people and this is why" kind of thing.
I think some people can be perfectly happy being 100% monogamous. I think other people will never be successfully monogamous, no matter how hard they try (and would be better off in the long run to just admit that to themselves and find suitable partners). I think most people fall somewhere in the middle: willing and able to be monogamous, but not always super happy about it. They appreciate the benefits of monogamy, but also recognize and accept its limitations and downsides.
Oh, and I think the communal raising of children would be so, so, so, awesome (and totally impossible in our current times).
Talk about EVERYONE being invested in EVERYONE'S wellbeing! How freakin' cool would that be?!?!?!
Brenna, I think that's a great comment.
I guess my "things were better then" comment is more directed at the paleo/primal movement as a whole. In some ways, this book just seemed like another pile-on to the "we are totally mis-matched to our environment" thing, which gets depressing after a while, you know? It's hard not to feel like we're hopelessly screwed on all fronts (diet, exercise, stress, sex) sometimes.
Oh good lord. Scientists (and I mean men scientists, because they're always the ones focusing on this subject matter) have not the slightest clue what's really what when it comes to understanding sexual behavior. Scientists have no fucking clue how or why anything wants to mate and have kids, and every decade it seems there is another Just So story that is conveniently compatible with the social story of the day.
I took a whole semester once to study animal behavior. THere was an entire fucking chapter presenting theory after theory about whether female birds choose males or vice versa or none at all or maybe it's just chaos. Interesting that the whole "female choice" started emerging around the late 70's, yes? And then there was a backlash of theory sometime in the 80's? And then in the 90's when our economy was depressed and people were dressing androgenously, suddenly nothing selected anything and every bird was just chaotically having sex. And then it was back to the millenium when maybe there was something to that male choice, but not that the females just laid about doing nothing.
On it goes. Sexual behavior theory has no basis, and no evidence, and it's a bunch of Just So stories, so take it for what it is. If it fits your personal view of life, then great; if not, chuck it and never worry about it again.
[still bitter about wasted post-grad class expenses...]
I would be interested in this book, but may have to wait until I invest/receive some type of e-reader. The downside to having a child who can read - can't imagine leaving that on the bedside table for her to question me about!
I think about this stuff all the time too.....I feel like we live such an isolated and artificial existence that is so out of sync from how we evolved. I am more focused on the child-rearing aspect. I just don't think we are living in a way that is that be beneficial. I fantasize about moving to some native teepee commune--where the old people and the kids and the dogs run around in the middle and everyone else goes berry picking and hunting....
Excuse the typos and the complete disregard of the actual topic at hand.
Dude, you got Penny fired up!
This whole concept is especially interesting to me considering that I have been with the same person for 16 years. I'm 32...so, yeah. I'm aware that this is not the way it's supposed to be. And while I have no desire AT ALL to "sow wild oats" or anything, because I am so so happy with how my life has turned out, sometimes I can't help but wonder if I missed anything, you know?
To expand on Katie's comment: I often think about how seemingly right most Native American tribes had it; the women chose their desired mates and if the council of mothers approved then they became a couple. If things weren't going well down the line, then they just chose someone else to fulfill other needs (pregnancy,etc.). If this was the norm in your culture, it wouldn't seem odd at all. And if the match was extraordinary, you could choose not to seek outside the union. Meanwhile, everyone had specific jobs and took care of the children. Men taught certain aspects, spiritual leaders gave theirs, etc.
I don't feel that most of us could just up and do this...they call those communes and, admit it, they are quite frowned upon. People who choose that in this day and age are usually quite radical and have other issues that make problems in their environment. But if there was some sort of national or global fallout that left us without civilization as we know it, then I think it would be quite a nice way to make a comeback, and future generations wouldn't know any different. I'll try and remember to suggest it ;)
Ditto becky on "It's the people who use this kind of thing as an excuse to cheat/for their cheating that bug me."
I'm actually surprised to hear how many commenters approve of "open relationships."
In my opinion, you can't have it both ways. You can't have the financial and emotional security of having a partner while also having the freedom to have sex with whoever you want. If you don't want a "one and only," then don't choose a life-long partner; play the field. But you have to make a choice.
Tess: It's friday; your boss is on Spring Break=definitely more posting!!! I will check back later today!
The communal raising of children thing happens all the time in other cultures, at least to some degree: like when multiple generations live together: grandparents helping out, etc.
Saly: Most Religious readers would say that how your life/partner turned out is EXACTLY "how it's supposed to be." And frankly, I doubt you missed out on very much at all.
Post a Comment