In the field of evolutionary psychology, there's a basic proposition that seems to be taken as a fundamental tenet. In any male-female pair bond, the two halves have diametrically opposed interests. Men, in an effort to spread their DNA as widely as possible, are interested in multiple casual affairs, and are most threatened by physical infidelity, because it might mean they are duped into spending their resources on what are actually the offspring of other men. Women, on the other hand, have to invest heavily in each of their children because the energy-intensive gestation and feeding of infants falls to them. They want relationships that last so that they're able to ensure the best environment for their kids, and are most threatened by emotional infidelity, because it might lure away their partner for good. In Sex at Dawn, Christopher Ryan and his co-author, Cacilda Jetha, critically examine these ideas by looking at the behavior of our nearest animal relatives to come to an entirely different conclusion.

The way Ryan and Jetha see it, humans are naturally polyamorous and best served in a group where sex is exchanged frequently and without possession or jealousy. They make the point that while researchers searching for the roots of human behavior often compare humans to chimpanzees because of the closeness of the genetic relationship, we're equally as closely related to bonobos, who have much different social structures. They look to these and other members of the ape family as they compare and contrast things like vaginal position, common copulatory positions, size and shape of the male reproductive organs, and female vocalizations during intercourse (and more) in an effort to determine how human sexuality has actually evolved over time and what it means for society today.

This book was a bit of a mixed bag for me. I thought they made some good arguments, but the language often got a little jokey informal trying-to-be-cool. Either you're trying to make a serious argument or you're trying to write a book aiming at a pretty low common denominator to get more sales, and this seemed like it was trying to be both. It's possible to write about important concepts in an accessible way, I just wrote about how well Silent Spring did that exact thing, but this doesn't hit the mark. I also thought they came off a little one-sided in their highlighting of the few examples of cultures that don't subscribe to the monogamous or polygamous models, portraying them as nearly utopian. The reality is that for most people in most cultures in modern history, marriages are between one man and one woman with the expectation of exclusivity. That hasn't always worked well in practice, but it's likely that even members of cultures that don't follow the mainstream experience unhappiness and strife in their personal relationships. More frustratingly, they don't really present a solution beyond "burn it all down and start over". It's an interesting look at the other side of evolutionary psychology, if you enjoy that sort of thing, but I wouldn't recommend it widely or whole-heartedly. ( )

Perché la fedeltà sessuale a lungo termine è così difficile per molte coppie?
Perché la passione sessuale spesso si affievolisce, anche quando l’amore diventa più profondo?
Perché le donne sono potenzialmente multiorgasmiche, mentre gli uomini fin troppo spesso raggiungono l’orgasmo a una velocità frustrante, per poi perdere interesse?
La gelosia sessuale è un elemento inevitabile e incontrollabile della natura umana?
Perché i testicoli umani sono molto più grandi di quelli dei gorilla ma più piccoli di quelli degli scimpanzé?
La frustrazione sessuale può farci ammalare? Come è potuto accadere che la mancanza di orgasmi abbia causato una delle malattie più comuni della storia, e come è stata trattata?

La narrazione standard – cioè quella secondo la quale l’uomo cerca in una donna fertilità e verginità, mentre la donna cerca stabilità economica e protezione per lə figliə; lui conquista (o lei si lascia conquistare) chi ritiene idonea; lui controlla che lei non gli faccia le corna e lei controlla che lui non si innamori di un’altra – ha provato a dare una risposta a queste domande, ma ha peccato di bias cognitivi (d’altro canto, pensato di essere un ricercatore sposato che vede i dati naturalizzare il fatto che la propria moglie vada a letto con un altro…).

Ryan e Jethá si impegnano a dare una risposta alternativa a quelle domande, cercando di non lasciare fuori niente e stabilendo per prima cosa che la monogamia non è affatto naturale, ma figlia di adattamenti culturali e come tale soggetta ai capricci del cambiamento (non che il resto non cambi, ma lo fa molto più lentamente).

In principio era il sesso intreccia studi relative a varie discipline (dalla psicologia all’archeologia, dall’antropologia all’anatomia) per mostrarci che non dovremmo proprio dare per scontata la monogamia, sia da parte nostra, sia da parte altrui. Dovrebbe essere una delle tante cose da discutere quando si entra in una relazione con qualcunə: dareste mai per scontato il suo gusto di gelato preferito?

L’unico difetto del libro a mio avviso è l’eccessivo focus sull’eterosessualità, soprattutto una volta stabilito che il sesso non ha la riproduzione come scopo principale (ta-dah!): magari mi cercherò un libro più queer sull’argomento (se esiste). Sentitevi liberə di offrire suggerimenti! ( )

2.75 ( )

Maybe I am too german but I do not appreciate the flippant tone of the book. ( )

Extremely interesting and entertaining popular science work. Unfortunately the emphasis is on the "popular" as it was written by an English PhD and an MD, and the real experts don't seem so impressed, so I'll knock it down to 3 stars. ( )