Lynn Saxon
Autor von Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn
Werke von Lynn Saxon
Getagged
Wissenswertes
- Geschlecht
- female
Mitglieder
Rezensionen
Statistikseite
- Werke
- 2
- Mitglieder
- 48
- Beliebtheit
- #325,720
- Bewertung
- 3.5
- Rezensionen
- 1
- ISBNs
- 3
If you think you need a rational, science-based reason for copulation with multiple partners (serially, simultaneously, or any variant thereof) Sex at Dawn is, at best, an unfortunate example of pseudo-science, and at worst, wish-fulfillment and propaganda by proponents looking for justification of their own choices. In fact, it reads like male chauvinist fantasy, and something any self-respecting humanist (note I restrained myself from saying feminist) would find, if not ludicrous, then downright insulting in its attempts to pretend support for female emancipation. By all means make your sexual choices as you prefer, but Sex at Dawn is not the book on which to be basing any supposed ancestral inclinations as the means to validate that choice.
[b:Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn|15892127|Sex at Dusk Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn|Lynn Saxon|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1353610623s/15892127.jpg|21642774] is the kind of refutation I love. An accurate and detailed examination of the Sex at Dawn authors' arguments, including highlighting the deliberate misrepresentation of data, evidence and quotes in order to support their own (biased) viewpoint, as well as using the same material to tear down the argument and (inevitably distorted) conclusion these authors purport to have constructed and deduced, respectively.
This is (unlike most of my reviews) going to be rather long and detailed, using quotes from [b:Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn|15892127|Sex at Dusk Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn|Lynn Saxon|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1353610623s/15892127.jpg|21642774] to demonstrate exactly why this book is both superior in content, execution, and summary to the book which spawned it. Do feel free to stamp your digital foot at my updates as I continue to add quotes. Better yet, read it yourself.
Many of us may prefer to only look at and think about humans but, like the evolutionary psychology that Ryan and Jethá present, looking just at humans can lead to a disconnection from evolutionary biology and to poor thinking. We need to tackle a bit more evolutionary biology next.
[b:Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn|15892127|Sex at Dusk Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn|Lynn Saxon|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1353610623s/15892127.jpg|21642774] end of Chapter One.
In Chapter Two, Saxon discusses the impetus for genes to survive and the various (unconscious) behaviours that succeed because of the "selfish" gene. Interestingly, it is infanticide as a male reproductive strategy that has likely led to pair-bonding. Discussing "sex drives" without acknowledging procreation is simply like saying we eat and ignoring the process of converting nutrition into body mass and waste. So while it is tempting to eliminate offspring in regarding sexual behaviour, it is misleading in terms of trying to evaluate the origin (and success) of sexual behaviours. Here the summary points from Chapter Two:
In baboons and langurs in mixed-sex groups with multiple males the affiliations between males and females, and males and offspring, are in species where females stay in their birth group and males come and go. What about multimale/multifemale species such as our closest cousins the chimpanzee and the bonobo where it is the males who stay put?
Ryan and Jethá argue [that] these species show our own evolution to be without the sexual competition, conflicting sexual interests, and females trading sex for protection or other resources that we see in so many other species. But is this really the case?
In Chapter Three, Saxon covers an impressive and exhaustive array of literature on observed behaviours of bonobos and chimpanzees, both in captivity and in the wild (and in various locations). The significance of this is that Ryan and Jethá manipulate various pieces of research (including falsely playing up the signficance of oxytocin when in fact the relevant chemical is vasopressin) to produce a distorted view of bonobos that is not only farcical, but underpins their claim that humans ought to be polygamous through time. Ryan and Jethá misrepresent the significance of bonobo sexual behaviour in relationship to sex for the sake of scratching an itch, and sex as a means to secure either food or access to partners (in the case of higher ranking females securing ovulating females for their own male (low-ranking) off-spring. They are also aren't above claiming that bonobos did not develop this behaviour before the split with the human common ancestor occurred. But if that were the case, why then would these behaviours have withered thereafter in the human ancestor? The answer is that the so-called 'sex' behaviours of bonobos developed as a result of their own isolation, and not the other way around. Some closing chapter points:
What is genuinely significant about both chimpanzees and bonobos is their contrast to humans:...we evolved some mechanism whereby males from different natal groups were able to interact more peaceably and move between groups as did the females...we also evolved in a way that meant that parenting from more than just the mother became essential. Enter the male-female pair bond?
...to be continued....… (mehr)