Sex at Dawn, part 5

This covers part 5 of the book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. (You can see my reaction to part 1 here, part 2 here, part 3 here, and part 4 here.) There are 3 chapters in this section.

Chapter 20: On Mona Lisa's Mind

This chapter marks something of a departure from earlier chapters, in that it provides citations to evidence backing its claims. There are a few major points brought up in this chapter:

1: When sheep and goats are raised by the other species, males mate with the species they are raised only, while females mate with whatever species they currently live with.

2: Female college students report lower numbers of sexual partners when they have reason to think others will be able to associate their report with a specific individual than when things are anonymous; male college students do not show any difference

3: Female humans show heightened genital blood flow regardless of the sex (or, potentially, bonobo-ness) of subjects in erotic imagery, while males show responses very much in line with their stated orientation (ie gay men respond to males, straight men respond to females).

4: Female college students show differential odor preferences for males based on whether or not they are using hormonal birth control.

All of this is taken to argue that female desire is much more inscrutable than male desire is. This may be the case. There are other possible interpretations -- genital blood flow as measured by a potentially intrusive probe may not be an accurate measure of arousal; sheep and goats are not people; changing preferences based on hormones does not mean that the preferences are inscrutable; etc. But as a first pass, I am willing to accept in arguendo that female desire is more fluid than male desire is. I'm not sure what that has to say about ancestral human sexual behavior, and I don't see this point being made by the authors. Still, I am pleased to see studies discussed and cited, even if they may not be as conclusive as portrayed to a popular audience.

Chapter 21: The Pervert's Lament

This chapter starts, oddly, with the notion that sexual frustration plays a role in destructive adolescent behavior, which from the context of the preceding paragraph appears to mean suicide. While the authors are correct that homosexual youth are significantly more likely to attempt to kill themselves than heterosexual youth are, I don't find it at all obvious that this is due to sexual frustration; I think it is much more plausible that this is due to a cultural message (which is thankfully changing) that there is something inherently wrong about homosexuality and that many consider it to be an abomination.

There then follows a long history of the attempts to stamp out masturbation at various points in American history, complete with speculation about the sexual habits and preferences of some of the reformers. I find this last section entirely distasteful, as it comes very close in my perception to an ad hominem attack -- attacking the individual, rather than the individual's ideas. While I feel campaigns against masturbation are at best foolhardy, that doesn't mean that I feel it is appropriate to attack the individuals, rather than their claims.

After this, the chapter veers further into anecdotes. One concerns a potentially fictional story about Calvin Coolidge and his wife visiting a chicken farm and talking with the farmer about how so few roosters perform the necessary duties for so many hens. Another concerns a case of infidelity known to the authors. These anecdotes seems to have little to say about wide spread patterns, as the plural of anecdote is not data.

Finally, the chapter concludes with an appeal for people to not break up marriages due to lack of sexual fidelity, or due to a desire for sex with another individual. This may be a reasonable position for some couples, depending on their own circumstances, personalities, emotions, etc. I don't feel there's much of scientific substance to say on this point.

Chapter 22: Confronting the Sky Together

This chapter is a concluding plea for people to discuss their own sexual needs with their partners, and not simply enact a script of what they think is required due to cultural pressure. I heartily endorse this idea in general -- people should communicate their needs and desires to their intimate partners, and relationships should do the best to work out what is needed and wanted by each of the individuals involved regardless of whether they are typical or not of the larger cultural idea.

My closing thoughts:

This book is largely without evidence. Many claims are made by assertion rather than synthesis of scholarly findings. Overly broad generalizations are made without the necessary support. As a popular science book, I feel it is extremely weak: it is overly confident of its own ideas; it gives the reader little sense of how science is actually conducted, or the careful claims of most respectable researchers; it routinely assumes that modern hunter-gatherer groups are perfectly analogous to ancestral ones; it tends toward extreme pan-adaptationism. I can understand why it became popular, as it is provocative and makes bold claims, but I feel it is a major disservice to science to make such claims well beyond the book's own ability to providence evidence and citations for them. I would not recommend this book for anyone seeking insight on ancient human sexual behaviors.