Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

[Tigersoap]

I haven't read this book but I thought it would be of interest to mention it just in case.

Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality by Christopher Ryan Cacilda Jethá

I don't have the necessary background to say if their point of view is a bit or a lot skewed but although there must probably be interesting things in this book it does not seem to include psychopathy or the place of love in the Work for example.

There is a 30 min interview of the author available at Vimeo :

In Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality renegade researchers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá debunk almost everything we “think we know” about sex and show how our promiscuous past haunts our current struggles regarding monogamy, sexual orientation, and family dynamics. Weaving together convergent, often overlooked evidence from anthropology, archeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, Sex at Dawn shows how far from human nature sexual monogamy really is and unapologetically upends unwarranted assumptions and unfounded conclusions while offering a revolutionary understanding of why we live and love as we do.

_http://vimeo.com/16031664

They shortly talk for example about imprinting, how agriculture influenced mating and how you had to chose monogamy despite what your hormones tell you.

 

[konkbent]

Hey. Actually sat down and read it. Sex at Dawn makes for a fun and trifling read.

The general thesis, IMO, is that humans are far more closely related to bonobos than they are to chimpanzees, and that because of such, we should look to the bonobo as being closer to the prehistoric man in behavior. Since humans are still 'wired' to live with similar social constructs as bonobos, we must naturally find fault with monogomy - hence the cheating and whatnot. They toss in a few stories about anatomy and prehistoric cultures as support for their argument.

While reading, I couldn't help but to think (assuming evolution is accurate) that the chimpanzee would be the progenitor of the modern day psychopath, though the word psychopath isn't used once in the book.

 

[RyanX]

While reading, I couldn't help but to think (assuming evolution is accurate) that the chimpanzee would be the progenitor of the modern day psychopath, though the word psychopath isn't used once in the book.

That's an interesting observation given Laura's recent article The Golden Age, Psychopathy and the Sixth Extinction where she describes the possible implications of cross-breeding between Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man, and how psychopathy, in its current forms, may have come about from this. It might explain the wide difference in sexual habits of humans and why monogamy just doesn't work for some people. It's hard to say, I don't know how much sexual habits are biologically determined versus socially or via some form of early imprinting.

 

[go2]

Hey. Actually sat down and read it. Sex at Dawn makes for a fun and trifling read.

The general thesis, IMO, is that humans are far more closely related to bonobos than they are to chimpanzees, and that because of such, we should look to the bonobo as being closer to the prehistoric man in behavior. Since humans are still 'wired' to live with similar social constructs as bonobos, we must naturally find fault with monogomy - hence the cheating and whatnot. They toss in a few stories about anatomy and prehistoric cultures as support for their argument.

While reading, I couldn't help but to think (assuming evolution is accurate) that the chimpanzee would be the progenitor of the modern day psychopath, though the word psychopath isn't used once in the book.

DNA evidence shows human and chimpanzee's evolutionary paths diverged at least 4.7 million years ago. Bonobos and chimps diverged from a common ancestor one million years ago. It is a stretch to link sexual behavior of the chimpanzees or bonobos to the study of human sexual behavior. Christopher Ryan admits to anthropomorphic bias in the first two minutes of the linked interview.

It is interesting to compare Caricature of Love to Dr. Christopher Ryan's perspective of human sexuality, and their implied perspectives of what it means to be fully human. Are we more than an evolved primate?

 

[konkbent]

Hey. Actually sat down and read it. Sex at Dawn makes for a fun and trifling read.

The general thesis, IMO, is that humans are far more closely related to bonobos than they are to chimpanzees, and that because of such, we should look to the bonobo as being closer to the prehistoric man in behavior. Since humans are still 'wired' to live with similar social constructs as bonobos, we must naturally find fault with monogamy - hence the cheating and whatnot. They toss in a few stories about anatomy and prehistoric cultures as support for their argument.

While reading, I couldn't help but to think (assuming evolution is accurate) that the chimpanzee would be the progenitor of the modern day psychopath, though the word psychopath isn't used once in the book.

DNA evidence shows human and chimpanzee's evolutionary paths diverged at least 4.7 million years ago. Bonobos and chimps diverged from a common ancestor one million years ago. It is a stretch to link sexual behavior of the chimpanzees or bonobos to the study of human sexual behavior. Christopher Ryan admits to anthropomorphic bias in the first two minutes of the linked interview.

It is interesting to compare Caricature of Love to Dr. Christopher Ryan's perspective of human sexuality, and their implied perspectives of what it means to be fully human. Are we more than an evolved primate?

It's certainly a stretch, but it's a greater stretch to link sexual behavior of humans to further removed species such as the gibbon or prairie vole. In the larger context of the book, the linkage of humans to bonobos is but one biological point attempted to support their idea that the 'traditional model' is flawed. At any rate, this is merely a foray into the innate nature of human sexuality rather than a definitive conclusion. By the facts of the discipline, such will never be confirmed.

It would have been far more correct to state my suggestion as the idea that chimpanzee behavior is more linked to neanderthal/psychopath behavior whereas bonobo behavior is more linked to human behavior - 'progenitor', outside of context, suggests exponentially more than I intended. Again, looking to explore and explain rather than declare.

While reading, I couldn't help but to think (assuming evolution is accurate) that the chimpanzee would be the progenitor of the modern day psychopath, though the word psychopath isn't used once in the book.

That's an interesting observation given Laura's recent article The Golden Age, Psychopathy and the Sixth Extinction where she describes the possible implications of cross-breeding between Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man, and how psychopathy, in its current forms, may have come about from this. It might explain the wide difference in sexual habits of humans and why monogamy just doesn't work for some people. It's hard to say, I don't know how much sexual habits are biologically determined versus socially or via some form of early imprinting.

The Golden Age, Psychopathy and the Sixth Extinction was definitely running through my mind - I had read DCM13 a few weeks prior to Sex at Dawn.

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

It is interesting to compare Caricature of Love to Dr. Christopher Ryan's perspective of human sexuality, and their implied perspectives of what it means to be fully human. Are we more than an evolved primate?

I tend to agree with Go2. What is presented here on the book Sex at Dawn seems to be another effort to enforce the idea of Evolution of man from ape and use this as a reason (excuse) to promote sexual (pathological) conduct that steers away of what a fully human love relation should - could be. Chekley in Caricature of Love gives ample evidence that human sexual behavior (in fact becoming anti sexuality) has been distorted heavily by psychopatic influence.

 

[Laura]

I'd like to add that the work of Stephen W. Porges, "The Polyvagal Theory", makes a very good case for humans evolving toward monogamy for very, very good reasons.

 

[Graalsword]

Group sex seems to be what Neanderthal sexuality was about. I just found this

_http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/8104939/Neanderthals-really-were-sex-obsessed-thugs.html

I assume, that Neanderthals (and hence psychopaths and OPs), could tend more oftenly to polygamy as their 2D-3D way to ensure reproduction and continuing of their species. Whereas potentially souled individuals would tend more to monogamy as a subconscious orientation to find a complementary soul. Then there are other influences that can mix the things, of course, and make people act in a way that is not in synch with their true nature. But this is just assumption, I may be wrong.

Psychopaths, then, promote polygamy to make normal people be more willing to mate with psychopaths, who are the ones who win in a society obsessed with supersexual performance. Thus expanding their race.

In the article I found says:

"Scientists examining fossils have discovered that Neanderthals were exposed to more testosterone during development which is likely to make them more unreconstructed in their behaviour.

That means they were more likely to start fights over mates and hierarchy in the group and more likely top have multiple partners. "

Pretty psychopathic.