Sex at Dawn, an Anthropological Review of Sex

We've been told that sexual monogamy comes naturally to our species. But how does this square with the facts: fewer and fewer couples marry, divorce is increasing and marriages are haunted by the twin spectres of adultery and flagging libido. What if our past is actually one of egalitarian promiscuity? What if monogamy doesn't come naturally to us and never has? And, if having an affair would make your marriage last, would you?

Christopher Ryan is an American psychologist who contends that much of what we've been told about our species is in fact untrue, particularly when it comes to sexuality. The bottom line, he says, is monogamy is unnatural: we're just not designed to have sex with the same person over a lifetime. He cheekily suggests that had Darwin had a better sex life our theories of human sexual relations would be completely different.

This session was chaired by the ABC's Robyn Williams and was part of the 2011 Festival of Dangerous Ideas at the Sydney Opera House.

Christopher Ryan is a psychologist and co -author of New York Times best-seller, "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality". Christopher contributes to Psychology Today and The Huffington Post.

Robyn Williams is a science journalist and broadcaster, and the host of ABC Radio National's The Science show. In 1987 he was named a National Living Treasure. In 1993, Robyn was the first journalist elected as a Fellow Member of the Australian Academy of Science. He was a Visiting Fellow at Balliol College Oxford in 1995-96. Robyn has written more than 10 books, the latest being a novel.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=k9ygq7F4TX4

My favorite part and also the art that has the biggest implications for mankind --

Scientifically proven: "When women rule a society, the men get laid more. Everybody's happier. Not one murder, not one infanticide, not one rape, no warfare. It's a very successful society."

Can I get an 'amen'?

Some people find sex with consenting adults, unnatural. They look for other outlets.
Some people find sobriety unnatural. They like drugs.
Others find the whole world unnatural. They like killing.
It's just there nature right?
Just because it's our nature doesn't make it right. :)

Where are the women discussing this issue? That's typical. If men feel that it is unnatural to be monogamous then they should say that upfront before marriage. Or even better, men can start marrying each other and they can cheat on each other too, besides they would agree that having multiple partners while being in a relationship is perfectly fine. A match made in heaven.

The presentation really is VERY good and needs to be watched before we can discuss.

It is right for some, not for others. Worth noting first up is that the undermining of the fundamental human family unit is a necessary step toward the goal of successful establishment of the NWO. The state of one's libido and fidelity are reflections of one's current state of awareness, and of the health of one's psyche. Monogamy is not without precedent in the natural world, and regardless of the fact that primate physiology may favour promiscuity, we are a species that has evolved along a certain path. Our primacy amongst species on this planet is a result of the development of certain complex structures and behaviours, the net result of which is to increase the period of helplessness and dependency of the human child (and, to a lesser extent, mother). To prosper as a species, and to enjoy the leisure in which we may ponder the nature of reality and other such meta-physical notions that bear no direct relationship to immediate physical survival, we require an extended period of security for our young. Monogamy is a successful way of ensuring this, but not necessarily the only way. Community involvement in the shape of communal care of children, with parents caring for all children on a rota basis would also work. I would recommend approaching this debate as free from the polarisation of human sexuality as possible, and also wise and constructive would be to avoid any kind of gender bashing or stereotyping.

this reminds me of the book "brave new world"

I have to agree that monogamy is not completely natural for the human animal. Women seem to want monogamy more for the sake of security. Since they bear children and need to be taken care of and protected by their mate more so during pregnancy and when the child is young, it's natural to be more possessive during those years. Men have more of a natural instinct to spread their seed, which is a survival instinct meant to propagate the species.

Believing that monogamy is right and the correct way to behave is societal and religious brainwashing, in my opinion. I have observed that I went through many stages in my life, from having occasional lovers when young (and married), being monogamous when my children were young, having many lovers when single, to not having any interest in other men once I met and married my 4th husband whom I consider to be my soul mate.

He and I had similar experiences and behaviors. We both had many lovers and 3 previous marriages until we met each other 16 years ago. We occasionally jokingly argue about who had the most lovers. I say it's ME and he says it's HIM! Since we met no one else has interested us. It also may have to do with getting older and evolving to where it's natural to be less interested in sexual variety. But I also think that if you are extremely in love with someone you are not even slightly interested in anyone else, at least that's how it is for me.

To say that fidelity equates to a more evolved state doesn't seem correct to me. When you leave your body and merge with other beings, which is a thousand times more intense and exciting than physical sex, you are actually evolving more by becoming more of who you are. You can merge with unlimited numbers of other beings. I think human sexuality gives us a tiny glimpse of that state and the desire to couple with others may just be that natural urge to merge again... with separated parts of who we are ...to become more whole.

Believing that monogamy is right and the correct way to behave is societal and religious brainwashing, in my opinion.

Now you said it was your opinion, so let me see if I can sway you.

Gibbon monkeys mate for life, and as far as I know they don't have a religion.
Swans,Wolves,Albatrosses, Beavers,Pigeons,Lobsters just to name a few are monogamous when in a relationship and some even for life.
The lack of monogamy or "respect" for the other person in said relationship, is one of the biggest downfalls of marriage. And when marriages started breaking down so did society.
Just because monogamy might not be natural ( still up for discussion ) doesn't make it bad.

I think it is an interesting subject. I find my self agreeing with both sides..... hmm

Still another person telling me what I'm supposed to be. Everyone is individual and I wish that someday these researchers would bug off and get that part straight.

In a bar in Ireland a woman sheep farmer said to me..you know they say all sheep look alike but they don't when you get to know them. Now there's someone who understands individual differences. Not only is every individual different from every other individual but every relationship is different from every other relationship. And here is this fool of man trying to propagate his egoistic notions about others. I had to put up with crap like this in the 70s.

I became very anti-intellectual at university because I did listen to what my professors had to say and it was a load of ****. I learned more that I can say from the self educated people of the world who are actually exposed to life and don't seek to impose themselves or their egoistic ideas on the gullible.

I finished reading the entire book about three weeks ago. If I had had access to this book when I was young I would be a different person in many ways. Maybe a much happier one. Nancy's take on this after quite a bit of experience gets my nod for how most people really are when totally comfortable being honest.

That being said part of the problem is there is a huge range of sexuality that most people are not allowed to consider in a rational way. There are people very happy being asexual, true hermaphrodites, as well as, once a year, once a month, once a week, and once a day kind of people. Being married to someone who does not fit you does not feel good.

I found this book so good, I copied some pages of it and have been sending it snal mail to people I really want to dialogue with.

In the book, it seriously addresses intense primate studies over the last 40 years. Gibbons are not that much like us. Our close cousins are chimpanzes, gorillas, and bonobos. There is much talk about DNA in the book. There is much current research still on the tribes of Oceania etc.

It is my hope that this book rocks off the walls of the world for the next year or so. A second in already on its way. By the way, the guy has a mate of many years who co wrote the book with him. She is a beautiful Indian woman. One of the things the book discusses is how the Western world has forced every other society to do its take on the way things ought to be and how deeply many resent it.

Those who have seen the so called sex temples of India, one of the statues used to provoke the Western ICK is a man mounted by a woman who is supported on each side by another woman who is also masturbating. In India this was once sacred--- not obscene. To do this well, in the right way for the right reasons, requires a kind of love and understanding the West has no concept and absolutely refused to consider that it has any validity. These were not orgies but ceremonial spiritual events that happened out of the context of every day life.

I have studied sex all my life and I am tantric master. I once wanted to do a thread on spiritual sexuality but was told by the mods that it was inappropriate and that we have children on this site. A year ago that infuriated me. Today, I agree. The childish behavior often displayed here by many a so called adult makes a subject of maturity requiring open minds and seeking new and different knowledge definitely inappropriate.

I refuse to get into whose ideas or beliefs of any kind are right or wrong but I do continually read to understand people's thinking and processes. The Darwin's delimenas and extensive notes that were not published are also considered in the book. On a whole religion is avoided. If religion is your basis for choosing your sexuality, then you have already decided how and are no longer interested in the why and therefore, you should not participate in this discussion which is not based on any religion but notes 1000s of years of ancient sexual practices.

If you can consider that everything we were taught about the pyramids was wrong, why not sexuality as a major culture factor is mostly wrong. Religion above all uses sex to repress thinking and instill guilt. The easiest way to raising your vibes and experiencing deep connection within and accessing your internal DNA is sex. In my life, I have found that to be an absolute fact. I don't preach it, instill it, or defend it. I just allow myself to know who I am deeply that way. I am so glad this book will give more people permission to try that path.

I cannot recommend this book more I am now going to watch the clip and maybe I will comment more.

Should it surprise me that no one had any comments to my comment?

After watching the clip, I was pleased to see that he is as funny in person as he is a writer. The book is an easy read while thouroughly documented the documentation is done in a way that is not distracting. I found some of his observations to be laugh out loud funny. And because I live in such a sexually repressed society some things he points out are so obvious that I never considered them.

The people who have the most to gain by this book being understood is women. Essentially, he says sex is not that big a deal certainly not something to let its presence or its abscense rule your life. On that level I agree. Sacred sex is something that is learned. It is something that you create a space for. It is something you work to come to really "know" about. Like everything else, the depth of study is based on individual taste.

My husband and I were married for 18 years. The sex was often very good but we never had great tantric sex. I tried to teach him and he tried to be open but maybe the 23 year difference---in the end he just wanted to get on with it already, The mind meld was so good that making an issue out of something that was not his style or interest would have been foolish. Using various oils and focusing on each of the physical senses and trying to consciously raise the kundalini thru the charkas was not what he was seeking. The fact he broke the bed boards in half on my antique french bed made him laugh for hours and that memory gave hims great pleasure even in the last hours of his life. All of this is love--accepting and giving and understanding of who we are. From the beginning of our marriage, he said it would be open and he was doing this as a gift for me because when we met he had been impotent for years and felt it could come back at any time. In the beginning, every erection was a miracle that had to be used right then. LOL The great gift he gave me was that he adored me and I never had that before, and thus, he never lost his desire for me and remained highly potent until cancer drugs got him. The great gift I gave him was that I was a good enough person that I never abused or used the power his love for me gave me in making him vulnerable. That allowed him to explore many things and continue to grow and become all he could be.

W

Quote:

---

Posted by write4change

Should it surprise me that no one had any comments to my comment?

After watching the clip, I was pleased to see that he is as funny in person as he is a writer. The book is an easy read while thouroughly documented the documentation is done in a way that is not distracting. I found some of his observations to be laugh out loud funny. And because I live in such a sexually repressed society some things he points out are so obvious that I never considered them.

The people who have the most to gain by this book being understood is women. Essentially, he says sex is not that big a deal certainly not something to let its presence or its abscense rule your life. On that level I agree. Sacred sex is something that is learned. It is something that you create a space for. It is something you work to come to really "know" about. Like everything else, the depth of study is based on individual taste.

My husband and I were married for 18 years. The sex was often very good but we never had great tantric sex. I tried to teach him and he tried to be open but maybe the 23 year difference---in the end he just wanted to get on with it already, The mind meld was so good that making an issue out of something that was not his style or interest would have been foolish. Using various oils and focusing on each of the physical senses and trying to consciously raise the kundalini thru the charkas was not what he was seeking. The fact he broke the bed boards in half on my antique french bed made him laugh for hours and that memory gave hims great pleasure even in the last hours of his life. All of this is love--accepting and giving and understanding of who we are. From the beginning of our marriage, he said it would be open and he was doing this as a gift for me because when we met he had been impotent for years and felt it could come back at any time. In the beginning, every erection was a miracle that had to be used right then. LOL The great gift he gave me was that he adored me and I never had that before, and thus, he never lost his desire for me and remained highly potent until cancer drugs got him. The great gift I gave him was that I was a good enough person that I never abused or used the power his love for me gave me in making him vulnerable. That allowed him to explore many things and continue to grow and become all he could be.

---

Ingo Swann wrote a book called Psychic Sexuality...in which he partly explores the history of the suppression of sexuality in the Western world as well as his discoveries about chakras and the true nature of sex during his years of being a guinea pig psychic at the SRI, or Stanford Research Institute, where he worked as a remote viewer. It's is well worth googling him...one might even find his book.

Quote:

---

Posted by 161803398

Still another person telling me what I'm supposed to be. Everyone is individual and I wish that someday these researchers would bug off and get that part straight.

In a bar in Ireland a woman sheep farmer said to me..you know they say all sheep look alike but they don't when you get to know them. Now there's someone who understands individual differences. Not only is every individual different from every other individual but every relationship is different from every other relationship. And here is this fool of man trying to propagate his egoistic notions about others. I had to put up with crap like this in the 70s.

I became very anti-intellectual at university because I did listen to what my professors had to say and it was a load of ****. I learned more that I can say from the self educated people of the world who are actually exposed to life and don't seek to impose themselves or their egoistic ideas on the gullible.

---

Sounds like you're more into Sui Generis than generic. :D For me, anything that starts trying to lump me in together with *any* group, label, definition, parameters, at all, gets the swift boot. I'm *unique*, my relationships are unique, my children are happy and secure from the quality and scope of the care that they get, they're not threatened or undermined by my Pansexual and polyamorous way of doing things, it's just how we are. Others get to be how they are. The problems all start, from my observation, when one groups or individual starts asserting that their personal way is the RIGHT or proper way, or 'means' this or that. It's all absolutely subjective.

It's funny- mostly in an unfun way- how so many find this so difficult to embrace... I grew up in the country too so I 'see' differently from others, I see those subtle differences. It's one of the reasons I live in the country- I want my girls to learn that skill. :)

Quote:

---

Posted by write4change

I finished reading the entire book about three weeks ago. If I had had access to this book when I was young I would be a different person in many ways. Maybe a much happier one. Nancy's take on this after quite a bit of experience gets my nod for how most people really are when totally comfortable being honest.

That being said part of the problem is there is a huge range of sexuality that most people are not allowed to consider in a rational way. There are people very happy being asexual, true hermaphrodites, as well as, once a year, once a month, once a week, and once a day kind of people. Being married to someone who does not fit you does not feel good.

I found this book so good, I copied some pages of it and have been sending it snal mail to people I really want to dialogue with.

In the book, it seriously addresses intense primate studies over the last 40 years. Gibbons are not that much like us. Our close cousins are chimpanzes, gorillas, and bonobos. There is much talk about DNA in the book. There is much current research still on the tribes of Oceania etc.

It is my hope that this book rocks off the walls of the world for the next year or so. A second in already on its way. By the way, the guy has a mate of many years who co wrote the book with him. She is a beautiful Indian woman. One of the things the book discusses is how the Western world has forced every other society to do its take on the way things ought to be and how deeply many resent it.

Those who have seen the so called sex temples of India, one of the statues used to provoke the Western ICK is a man mounted by a woman who is supported on each side by another woman who is also masturbating. In India this was once sacred--- not obscene. To do this well, in the right way for the right reasons, requires a kind of love and understanding the West has no concept and absolutely refused to consider that it has any validity. These were not orgies but ceremonial spiritual events that happened out of the context of every day life.

I have studied sex all my life and I am tantric master. I once wanted to do a thread on spiritual sexuality but was told by the mods that it was inappropriate and that we have children on this site. A year ago that infuriated me. Today, I agree. The childish behavior often displayed here by many a so called adult makes a subject of maturity requiring open minds and seeking new and different knowledge definitely inappropriate.

I refuse to get into whose ideas or beliefs of any kind are right or wrong but I do continually read to understand people's thinking and processes. The Darwin's delimenas and extensive notes that were not published are also considered in the book. On a whole religion is avoided. If religion is your basis for choosing your sexuality, then you have already decided how and are no longer interested in the why and therefore, you should not participate in this discussion which is not based on any religion but notes 1000s of years of ancient sexual practices.

If you can consider that everything we were taught about the pyramids was wrong, why not sexuality as a major culture factor is mostly wrong. Religion above all uses sex to repress thinking and instill guilt. The easiest way to raising your vibes and experiencing deep connection within and accessing your internal DNA is sex. In my life, I have found that to be an absolute fact. I don't preach it, instill it, or defend it. I just allow myself to know who I am deeply that way. I am so glad this book will give more people permission to try that path.

I cannot recommend this book more I am now going to watch the clip and maybe I will comment more.

---

I love this post. I absolutely agree with your take on the childish behaviour that does not seem able or willing to move from the old paradigm positions to embracing new ones that can hold far more evolved and embracive perspectives than are currently clung to by the majority. I fully understand the personal choice of each individual; where Elvis leaves the Building for me is when said individuals start applying intellectual or spiritual rationalisations to their choices for the apparent purpose of justification. Who actually really cares, except those that feel the need to either tell others who/how to be, for whatever reasons? Or reassure themselves about their own choices. Either way it's not where I like to hang out and I usually go other places where the exchanges aren't so heavy with dogma or energetic dodgy/load.

Thank you for posting this. I really enjoyed and resonated with it- I didn't see this earlier as I'm learning to be vewwy, vewwy careful what threads I go into here... *creepcreepstealthyninacreeping*

Quote:

---

Posted by Solstyse

You know for some people having sex with another consenting adult is unnatural. They like kids.
Some people find sobriety unnatural. They like drugs.
Others find the whole world unnatural. They like killing.
It's just there nature right?
Just because it's our nature doesn't make it right. :)

---

You're describing pathological behaviour. It's interesting you should put sex in that category. Monogamy isn't right or wrong. It's whatever works for you. Personnally, I find that it's unnatural. In the end, it's what sex outside of marriage represents for you that matters. Does it mean loss, betrayal, etc... Like Christopher Ryan said, it's a difficult choice. And if ego stepped out of the way, it wouldn't even be an issue.

Basically most of us can look back on our life and know that we have not had the same sexual partner . Save for a few that married their highschool sweethearts and remained married for 60 years , but who knows if fidelity was present.

It used to be you had one person, you got married and that was it until one partner died and then perhpas you got married again.

Now people date a lot, but mostly to find the 'perfect' partner so while having lots of sexual relationships and lots of partners the end goal is marriage with that attached thought of fidelity. Marriage has been used as a means of enforcing fidelity which just something that can't be guaranteed or forced.

Not to say that its wrong that two people eventually settle down and monogamy just evoloves from a state of contendedness, maybe people find it just not an issue anymore of finding other sexual partners . Sex in itself has been generated into such huge idea and even ideal, where natural occuring monogomy is not based on sex but because sex has been put in its proper perspestive, not the thing any relationship gimbols about.

If Marriage and monogamy were naturallly occuring states with humans we wouldn't have these problems, they've been used to employ and enforce with. Monogamy is not a bad thing but its been used as weapon of enforcement, and even the legal system is seeing that.

Sex often destroys relationships more than the presence of infidelity. It's used a tool of control and a power struggle. People who adopt healthy attitudes about the act of sex may go either way, monogamy or have a number of sexual relationships without moral conditions of enforcment hanging over thier heads.

What is infidelity really? Having sex with another person? then most of us have violated fidelity well before we entered into a state of marriage or committed relationship.

Or is it breaking a contract? If a contract was not present in the first place it couldn't be broken. Fidelity is brought forward and levered on everything even if another partner isn't finding other sexual partners. Like looking at another men and women is somehow a violation of fidelity. This is very much about ownership issues. Ownership is the number one reason I have determined to stay out of relationships because all these conditions are being levered on me right from the start. Is staying out of the relationship arena healthy? I don't know, but having a avalanche of conditions piled on my head instead of just letting things evole naturally is not.

Monogamy may be present ONLY because a person cannot find other partners with healthy attitudes about sex and the established partner may be more comfortable because sex isn't deployed as a weapon.

So many variables here, and most conditions about sex and fidelity have been created society and not what occurs naturally.

I've seen people attempt to adopt free'er attitudes about sex, and went on a crusade of attempting to **** everyhing in sight to enforce that attitude and ended up miserable. they just adopted another attitude towards sex instead attempting to understand what sex really is.

Enforcing monogomy and enforcing ones sexual freedom can both be a land mines.

Having numerous sexual relationships doesn't automatically mean they are all being conducted at the same time either. When I have talked about this subject in the past suggesting that monogamy isn't natureal the first reaction I always get is someone snapping at me, "So you think we just **** everything, have 20 partners at the same time?!"

No that's not even the point. I know people who have not chosen monogamy and they aren't that sexually active. If one knows what I mean.

People who adopt healthy attitudes about sex may altogether become less interested in sex as well, because the ego attachment isn't there. Leaving room for sharing between partners something besides sex. I find the notion of comfort sex rather distasteful where one partner is using the other partner as a security blanket.

Marriage seems to be a financial and legal contract with a sacred agrement splashed in there for whatever reason. Marriage is used to enforce monogamy when it fails. Infidelity has even been taken away as grounds for divorce.

Family isn't destroyed by divorce, or even infidelity, or even sex, but the power struggle that occurs after a separation. Probably the same power struggle that ended the marriage in the first place. Six years after my divorce my ex is still attempting to punish me or my daughter, basically destroying his relationship with his daughter. The divorce dind't do that, the failed marriage didn't do that, infidelity didn't do that, he's doing it. A court order could force my daughter to see her father but its not going to force a healthy relationship, so the laws and social mores have been used to force conditions instead of allowing them to occur naturally. My ex not understanding this thinks that the court will force his daughter to like him. So I see this enforcement policy as a destructive force there.

Natural monogomy isn't a forced state it almost evolves without thought from a state of not having sexual matters enforced at all. And marriage doesn't have anything to do with it. Marriage has been used as a means of enforcing monogamy. Why so many don't get married , in case the monogamy that is already occuring shifts at some point in the future , it allows a certain freedom to evolve without being punished by legal fines paid to dissolve what is essentially just a legal contract that has nothing to do with sex, with fidelity or even love really. Which emphasizes that perhaps monogamy isn't natural to humans which doesn't mean its unnatural to have monogamy,...... its asking how did that evolve? Lack of enforcement and conditions may have allowed it to arrive at that state.

Even in conditions where monogomy isn't present and a free sex attitude is 'supposed' to be present I find conditions being enforaced. When men make sexual advances at me and I refuse them, I'm accused of wanting a monogamous relationship or that I am negotiating something and really the only thing I am saying is "I don't want to have sex with you" and that is viewed, by them, as wrong. That is enforcement. Free means I have a choice. Now sexual freedom has its own jail. This is an attempt at forcing something on the naturally occuring conditions of sexuality and trying to use sex as a means of control.

Different strokes for different folks. Call me old-fashioned, but I took the "till death do us part" seriously. Next month is our 20 yr anniv. I probably have a different outlook on sex because I got molested as a young teen and have a negative outlook on some types of sexuality. Two consenting adults is one thing, takeing advantage of a child is another,and it's wrong beyond words to describe in my view. It seemed as if the scumbag was trying to recruit and indoctrinate me into perversion. Maybe he was a victim of the catholic church just continueing the cycle of perversion.

I don't think monogamy should be dismissed anymore than sexual freedom should, I just explore the idea of where these ideas a are coming from and why. Not to be taken personally.

Sexual molestation imposed by father onto a child is physical symptom of much more prevalent emotional co-dependency where the father is emotoinally imposing on a young woman. My ex has never phsysically molested or abused his daughter but the emotional imposition is one that is bordering on pedophilia, he feeds on her. Narccisitic parenting. If he's not feeding on her to prop up his ego, or she refuses it he becomes hostile with her. This is more prevalent, and direct physical abuse often stems from that energetic pedophilia, but not always.

My daughter fortunately had intervention and began refusing his attitudes that she should be the surrogate wife. He even imposed fidelity on her--don't look or love or associate with your other parent. It's very ****ed up.

I'm sorry that you had that sort of experience Crested Duck and really it was a condition imposed on you and I dont' mean to make you think your old fashioned for 'death till us part' .

I'm just saying if you had not had a predator imposing on you in early childhood, your outlook on fidelity and monogamy might have been different.

None of this discussion I doubt is supposed to be a judgement about people's sex lives but more how society has contributed to our outlook on sex that perhaps was not presented thousands of years ago.

It was'nt my dad, it was best friends uncle, one of the community's Lions Club members/ boy scout/ cub scout leaders. My bf was victim too as well as alter boy victim at his church. I was raised protestant church. My dad was a mental/ emotional abuser who did'nt want to deal with the embarrassment when I asked for help. I pissed on his grave after his funeral then went after my abuser and destroyed his standing in the community permanently. If my sister had'nt been with me the day I hunted him down I would have killed him, but I took the higher road.