Review: “Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality” by Christopher Ryan & Cacilda Jethá
If monogamy is supposed to be humanity’s natural state, why is it so hard?
Ever since Darwin, cultural anthropologists have published study after study “proving” that humans have evolved to be monogamous. They demonstrate behaviours in other primates. They examine human biology and physiology to show how we have clearly evolved to have one sexual partner and one sexual partner only. They highlight the consistency of marriage in societies throughout the history of civilisation. And together they have provided a massive collection of evidence that humans are naturally monogamous.
But if that’s the case, why are we so bad at it?
That is the question Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá set out to explore in Sex at Dawn. In doing so, they demonstrate how centuries of bias (both conscious and unconscious) have impacted the field of social anthropology, leading to a scientific consensus that is, if not wrong, at least deeply flawed, meaning that perhaps it’s time to be honest with ourselves and start reevaluating the ideas society has held about relationships.
Since Darwin's day, we've been told that sexual monogamy comes naturally to our species. Mainstream science - as well as religious and cultural institutions - has maintained that men and women evolved in families in which a man's possessions and protection were exchanged for a woman's fertility and fidelity. But this narrative is collapsing. Fewer and fewer couples are getting married, and divorce rates keep climbing as adultery and flagging libido drag down even seemingly solid marriages.
How can reality be reconciled with the accepted narrative? It can't be, according to renegade thinkers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá. While debunking almost everything we "know" about sex, they offer a bold alternative explanation in this provocative and brilliant book.
In the tradition of the best historical and scientific writing, Sex at Dawn unapologetically upends unwarranted assumptions and unfounded conclusions while offering a revolutionary understanding of why we live and love as we do.
I’m always cautious of discussions of pre-historical anthropology.
If you read around the polyamory online community enough, you will eventually stumble across people arguing one side or the other, and everyone will throw out books or studies that “prove” their point of view. But the thing about pre-history is, obviously, there is no record, and without that, we will never truly know what human relationships looked like in the pre-agricultural era. Or, considering the fact that homo-sapiens existed for hundreds or thousands of years before agriculture, the many different ways human relationships looked in that time. Sure, we can extrapolate using fossil records, make comparisons with our primate cousins, or study so-called “primitive cultures”, but at the end of the day, the most anyone is ever going to come up with is best-guess theoretical.
This is why, as a polyamory educator, I long ago decided that the debate is pointless. We’re never going to be able to know if we evolved to be monogamous or polyamorous. Instead, we should put our energy into creating the best relationships possible, regardless of the number of people we are dating.
But, boy, have there been a lot of people throughout modern history who believed they had had the scientific data to conclusively prove that humans are naturally monogamous.
But Christopher Ryan and Cacila Jethá disagree. And in Sex at Dawn, they break down exactly why.
They start with a simple argument. If monogamy is indeed our natural state, one baked into our species through two hundred thousand years of evolution, why on earth are we so bad at it? Why is our society filled with examples of non-monogamy, both ethical and unethical? According to Ryan and Jethá, it’s all down to inherent social and cultural biases. Throughout Sex at Dawn, they show how anthropologists throughout history have wittingly and unwittingly interpreted evidence in a way that ensures their conclusions match their preconceptions. And even when this wasn’t the case, there are arguments that the way these experiments were conducted influenced the results in some significant way. At the same time, they present evidence that suggests the anthropological, biological, and fossil records actually indicate that humanity evolved in far more non-monogamous communities than modern society has been willing to accept.
Of course, a book dismissing hundreds of years of scientific consensus is never going to avoid controversy. Even a brief look at Sex at Dawn's online reviews will show how strongly some people feel about this topic. On one side, you have academic snobs arguing that the book is too "pop-culture", and that anything written purposefully to engage laymen readers is automatically worthless. Siding with them, you have the people who are simply furious at the idea of anyone questioning the sanctity of monogamy, and claiming that any evidence that non-monogamy is natural must be the work of the devil. But then, on the flip side of that argument is an opposing side that insists Sex at Dawn is the greatest anthropological work of all time for no other reason than it is pro-non-monogamy.
Try not to be like these people. Don't prejudge either way. Yes, I am biased towards the idea that non-monogamy is a natural state for humans, but I went into this book with an open mind. Just because I agree with someone's beliefs doesn't mean I automatically think their work is good.
And having done so, I would argue that, at its core, Sex at Dawn is not really a book about human sexuality, but instead a book about the importance - and difficulty - of seeking neutrality in scientific research. Our cultural conditioning and personal beliefs will always colour our work. Sex at Dawn explores how, if we don't question this, we risk reinforcing ideas that are potentially untrue, or even harmful.
Of course, just because many people went into Sex at Dawn with their opinions already set before they even began, doesn't mean there aren't valid criticisms to make. While I don't believe it was their intention, in their desire to remain neutral, Ryan and Jethá sometimes come across as if they are mythologising pre-history. In some parts, we are seemingly presented with a pre-agricultural society that was an Eden-like utopia until we destroyed it by eating from the tree of farming knowledge. Also, the chapters felt uncomfortable, as it felt as if the authors were almost glorifying toxic behaviours simply because they came from functioning non-monogamous societies (particularly in instances where young women and girls are expected to be sexually available to older men). I don't believe this is intentional. The authors are simply presenting, without judgment, evidence of non-monogamous human cultures that have been historically erased or ignored. But I think the book would have been better for highlighting that even if non-monogamy is a natural part of human evolution, it doesn't automatically make all non-monogamous practices healthy.
Sex at Dawn took me a while to get through. Despite the academics who dismiss it as oversimplified pop science, there is still a lot to take in for someone who, like me, does not have an academic mindset.
I am, of course, approaching this book from the perspective of a non-monogamy educator, so I naturally have my own opinions and biases. But whether or not you believe or are convinced by Sex at Dawn's thesis that non-monogamy may well be humanity's natural state, I still think this is an important book to read. Instead of seeing it as a book about monogamy vs non-monogamy, go into it as a book exploring how our opinions all too often shape what we perceive as "fact", and the importance of seeking diversity of viewpoints to ensure cultural stereotypes don't get in the way of seeking he truth. Hell, one of the main arguments of this book is that anthropology is riddled with people who stack the evidence so that it matches their preconceived belief systems, and it would be disingenuous to absolve them of the same responsibility.
But if nothing else, Ryan and Jethá's work demonstrates that the centuries of scientific studies that are used to claim that monogamy is "natural" are, at the very least, flawed. And if you are exploring non-monogamy in some form, just that knowledge that all the arguments about monogamy being "normal" might not quite be so solid can be comforting.
Would you like to learn more about polyamory, keep up to date with articles when they are posted, and also receive a FREE COPY of A Basic Guide To Ethical Non-Monogamy? Then sign up for my newsletter.