No, that’s not what I’m saying—and it’s not what the authors of Sex At Dawn are arguing either.
The point of Sex At Dawn—and my point in drawing your attention to it (column, podcast)—isn’t that monogamy is unnatural and therefore no one should attempt it and that people have license to break the monogamous commitments they made to their partners. And for the record: I’m happy to acknowledge that there are lots of good reasons to be monogamous or very nearly monogamous.
What the authors of Sex At Dawn believe—what they prove—is that we are a naturally non-monogamous species, despite what we’ve been told for millennia by preachers and for centuries by scientists, and that is why so many people have such a hard time being and remaining monogamous. I’m not saying that everyone everywhere has to be non-monogamous; the authors of Sex At Dawn don’t make that argument either. (Lots of monogamists, however, run around insisting that everyone everywhere should be monogamous—and the monogamists get a pass because, hey, they mean so well and wouldn’t it be nice if everyone were?)
The point is that people—particularly those who value monogamy—need to understand why being monogamous is so much harder than they’ve been lead to believe it will be. In some cases this understanding may help people find the courage to seek out non-monogamous relationships and/or arrangements and/or allowances that make them—gasp!—happier and make their relationships more stable, not less, as a routine infidelity won’t doom their marriage/domesticpartnership/commitment/slavecontract/whatever. But understanding that monogamy is a struggle for most people, and being able to be honest with our partners about it, may actually help some people remain monogamous.
UPDATE: This letter arrived in the “Savage Love” mailbox as I was writing this post:
I just wanted to thank you for drawing so much attention to the Sex At Dawn book. I am going to get it as soon as possible so I can better understand myself. I have always felt a certain amount of shame because I’ve never had a monogamous relationship. Having been married 14 years (and having married at 19, which I know is a no-no in your book), I’ve had plenty of temptation and only given in a few times. Those events felt like they were saving my sanity, they never had anything to do with me loving my husband any less, or making up for his insufficiencies.
Even if I had waited to get married I still would’ve had these side relationships. It wasn’t until I started listening to your advice that I realized that maybe I wasn’t the problem. Now there’s this book and it gives me hope that our culture might one day be more open about this subject and perhaps more people will come to see the inability to be monogamous as less of a character flaw and more of a fact of life.
For all these years I didn’t even know that’s what it was, or what was wrong with me, all I knew was that I felt like shit because I couldn’t do it. Thanks for cluing me into evolution, reptile brains, etc. This is all very pertinent now, as I am at a serious crossroads and I need all the help I can get.—M
I’m not giving M here a pass on the cheating. I think people should be honest with their partners, etc. What I’d like to see—and what I think a book like Sex At Dawn brings us closer to—is more realism and more honesty. People should have open, honest conversations with prospective partners about their needs, their expectations, what they’re capable of, and what happens if they fall short, before they make what may be, for them, an unrealistic promise that they are not just likely to break, but hard-wired to break.
Dan, are you on commission?
I think he just doesn’t have a filter. He probably stayed up all night reading and decided it was The Best Book Ever and can’t shut up about it. Give it a day or two.
Meanwhile, I’m probably going to buy and read it, just because.
Wow wtf was this post about? This book proves something? Look, a pop-sci book never proves anything. Evolutionary psychology as a whole sure has some interesting things to say and I know about many of those things but a pop-sci book written about the subject is not the end of the debate.
You could argue that humans never had laws about murder and rape in the world our genes evolved in but that does not mean we should support murder and rape. If monogamy is the better thing to do for everyone (it’s probably not but it always is possible) then saying that it is not the original state of humans is not a good arguing point.
The fact that humans can overcome our natural state of being (jealous, murderous, controlling, and violent) in our social interactions is one of the most beautiful things about being a human. Your argument falls in the logically fallacy “appeal to tradition” and its the same bullshit that the fundies use to argue against you Dan.
I have to assume that you got a flood of letters accusing you of attempting to destroy monogamous relationships? Personally I don’t get it; monogamy works great for me and my wife but we don’t go around insisting that it’s what works great for everyone. We have a few friends in an open marriage which works great for them. I think it’s great that you’re attempting to redefine happy relationships as the type of relationship that works for the individuals instead of “THIS is what a happy relationship is and EVERYONE must conform to this ideal.”
See, this post makes more sense than your last column. I think you were a little lazy in writing your opinion there and you’re being understandably jumped on for it. There’s a difference between saying that we shouldn’t assume monogamy is easy for everyone, and saying that its unnatural and everyone who tries it struggles with it, which is what you said in your column. That’s why you got a flood of people saying “actually, I don’t struggle with it”. You made it sound like those people don’t exist and they’re asserting that they do exist, not that everyone else should be like them.
@3 I don’t think that’s what he’s getting at. For millenia (or at least many hundreds of years) we’ve been told that monogamy is the natural human state but that begs the question that if it is the natural human state then why do people have a hard time being monogamous? The answer is that it isn’t the natural human state. It’s not an endorsement of polyamory or condemnation of monogamy but it is something that’s good to keep in mind when trying to decide what sort of relationship is good for you.
(Oh yeah, and when I said this post makes sense, I was ignoring the part where you said this book “proves” anything.)
Monogomy is natural. It’s just normally it has a rolling 3-5 year reset, and is optimized for raising kids until they can walk on their own and not need breast feeding.
At least for the first few million years of our genetic existence.
Some variables include resources available to the mother, education of the mother, and typical parental abandonment when partners needs aren’t met. As well as visually “available” partners – part of the problem now for long term relationships is we “see” more partner choices than actually exist, and we can travel more easily.
None of this will matter when our Chibi hamster overlords return, mind you.
i would not make any commitments whatsoever to someone who would place their biology over their desire to make me feel loved. i’m not saying the book is incorrect or anything — it just really, really cracks my little heart like glass that progressive people are increasingly electing and recognizing and accepting this. when i was a little girl i wanted to get married.
Dan: “FINALLY. Someone wrote a book with scientific analysis proving what I’ve been vainly trying to thump into the thick skulls of a nonsensical majority!”
<3
Dan, quick opinion: harder for men or for women?
“What the authors of Sex At Dawn believe—what they prove—is that we are a naturally non-monogamous species, despite what we’ve been told for millennia by preachers and for centuries by scientists,”
Perhaps preachers for the last two millennia have argued for monogamy, but there have been plenty of scientists and other social leaders who have argued that monogamy is not natural for humans. Ryan and Jetha certainly are not the first.
The key really has less to do with your own tendencies and more to do with synching you and your partner’s tendencies in the best way it works for each of you.
@11: Yes.
Dan says::
“What the authors of Sex At Dawn believe—what they prove—is that we are a naturally non-monogamous species..”
Um, no. The book does not prove this at all.
And since many, if not most, of us would fail miserably at non-monogamy, then one could also ague the same way that we are a naturally monogamous species.
The actual truth lies somewhere in between – some folks are monogamous and some aren’t. I wouldn’t apply either label as natural for our species.
@ 13 – Smartass. But that’s what you put on your 1040 for occupation, right?
@15 I think he puts down “sex worker”.
Why is it “mono-gamy” and “poly-amory?”
If we’re sticking with Greek, the language of both prefixes, and also not talking about marriage, per se, shouldn’t it be “monoeros” and “polyeros?” Or is “eros” singular? I don’t know what the plural would be.
Just wondering…
@3
You are absolutely right. What the authors “prove”?? Are you kidding me??
Dan doesn’t know much about science. He read a pop-science book that agreed with his own opinion/lifestyle choices and suddenly it’s LAW. And anyway, it’s so clear from his other postings on the subject that he has issues with his own personal inability to be monogamous so he’s decided to beat into the masses that polygamy is the normal, natural state.
Well, sorry, Dan, it sure as fuck isn’t normal or natural for many of us out here, and no, it’s not because culture/religion has brainwashed us. I simply ain’t built to stray, like you are, and trying to convince me otherwise is like trying to convince me I’m into chicks (which I’m not).
@14 Human are designed to be non-monogamous but not happy doing so. Human nature would dictate that men use violence and coercion to mate with as many women as possible while also violently preventing other males from doing so. Higher human aspirations such as peace and well being are not considered.
Yes we could go back to the days when monogamy was only enforced by violence but I would rather stick with what we have today. Today someone can choose if they want monogamy or not. To make the claim that non-monogamy is the natural state and that anyone who doesn’t want to go along with it is just swayed by years of religious and patriarchal doctrine is wrong. I am not saying Dan holds that opinion but the author of this books gets awfully close to that conclusion. I suppose I will have to read the book to be sure but this sounds like it is going to be the most biased book on evolutionary psychology I have read.
@18 FWIW most of the poly people I know also do get turned on by their partner being with someone else at least just a little bit. Also most poly people I know have fucked up, messy, and jealous love lives. Most of the monogamous people I know have fucked up, messy, and jealous love lives.
A lot of poly people are normal and reasonable with their claims that their lifestyle is only for some people. There is another group of poly people who claims that their lifestyle is an ascended level of humanity and that anyone who can’t understand it are immature emotionally.
I know a bit about the actual evolutionary psych science about monogamy and non-monogamy. Neither one is typically “hard-wired” to anyone’s thinking all the time. Often it’s situationally dependent.
For anyone who IS interested in the actual research-based findings about sexual strategies (i.e., monogamy and non-monogamy), psychologist David Buss is a great person to start with:
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/…
The word in Greek from which poly is derived variously declined according to either πολλός, -ή, -όν or πολύς, –, πολύ both of which mean “much, many.” The word itself can be declined in both the singular and the plural; we typically translate the singular into English as “much,” and the plural as “many.” For example (though without the necessary smooth breathing mark as I can’t seem to find the correct symbol, and noting the acute accent on the upsilon ought to be grave in this circumstance) the term “πολύς έρος” means “much love.” Using the more common Ionic forms “πολλοί έροι” means “many loves.” I apologize for the imperfect use of diacritical marks as I confess my knowledge of “Word” is limited.
Claiming that monogamy is “unnatural” is just as dubious as claiming that its “natural”. It seems clear to me that we humans can be conditioned to do monogamy very well or very poorly. Also, historically, beneath almost every pronouncement of the natural order lies a political agenda (often but not always conservative), and I wonder if the same is true of this book.
@21 is correct – this is a scientific question. I’m curious if Sex At Dawn treats it as such.
I listened with interest to Dan’s interview with Ryan on the podcast. At one point they listed all of the politicians who strayed who would have been better off if we hadn’t had this monogamy-for-everyone mindset: Spitzer, Edwards, Clinton, etc. I was with you until you mentioned Gov. Mark Sanford. I think this is the guy who represents the worst case scenario for people who fear letting their partner have sex with other people. This guy decided that the woman he was having the affair with was his soul mate. Clinton was just getting a blow job, but Sanford fell in love with Ms. Argentina. How can we be sure that sex won’t lead to emotional involvement?
We’ve never heard anyone claim monogamy was ‘natural’.
Or easy.
We have heard the claim that it will lead to more happiness for the individuals that practice it (and the society they live in)
Humans are not naturally honest.
Or altruistic.
Don’t always eat all their veggies.
But they can choose those superior behaviors.
Ditto monogamy.
Another great read on this subject is “The Moral Animal” by Robert Wright. Goes into both this (above) and why our species has developed into (at least culturally) basically monogamy, with straying on the side.
Having said that, Dan’s only point is this- continue to deny the evolutionary pressures within us that aren’t optimized for monogamy, or have a little bit of reality involved when choosing a life mate. Duh. To deny things like genetics is to do so at one’s own peril. Knowledge about how we tick is never a bad thing.
@1 I’m pretty sure if Dan were “on commission,” that cute big-mouthed boy from a few days ago would already be at his house folding laundry…
the problem with the whole damned thing is that nobody will act on the advice to be honest and open with their partners about their need to have multiple sex partners. Just about zero women will take that w/an open heart and try and be understanding to that fact. You mention it, and you’re screwed instantly. Some women will lose trust in you immediately just for knowing you are having those thoughts in the first place.
sure, its great. lets be honest. When you figure out how to get your partner to respect your needs then let me know. Until then, bringing this up is just like cutting the legs off of your relationship.
you’ll just make your girlfriend cry. don’t do it.
I can’t even figure out how to convince just one person to have sex with me.
Please stop flogging this stupid book.
I’m sure it’s very interesting – probably a fun read and great to sit around and talk about with friends over drinks – but evo psyche shouldn’t be pointed to as PROOF of ANYTHING.
Seriously, Dan, there are evo psyche texts out there attempting to prove every pet theory under the sun – including pet theories that are anti-gay, racist and sexist.
We know almost NOTHING about how our primitive ancestors actually lived, and even if we did, the idea that certain things are “hardwired” into our brains is bullshit.
I happen to think monogamy is great for some people, but not for everyone – but I’m certainly not going to bolster my argument with bullshit pseudo science.
Prove? Oy. Forget this book and pick up one on the basics of science.
@28 – “Just about zero women will take that w/an open heart and try and be understanding to that fact. You mention it, and you’re screwed instantly. Some women will lose trust in you immediately just for knowing you are having those thoughts in the first place.”
This, right here. This is why it seems a little pointless to me when Dan suggests to some frustrated letter writer that they need to tell their asexual spouse to grant them some on-the-side action. Given some of the women I’ve known who would kick their husbands/boyfriends out of the house for even daring to suggest they aren’t anything and everything said husbands/boyfriends might ever need, I think that suggestion is generally a waste of time.
(Yes, I’m sure there are women who can’t bring up the idea to their insanely jealous boyfriends/husbands as well. Never met any that went on record about it, though.)
@28 and 33. This, right here. You guys are all scared that she might leave. Yeah, she might. But you want more sex. That’s your choice. If you need more sex, then tell her, and let the chips fall where they may. Don’t be too wimpy to ask her, but still feel entitled to more sex so get it secretly on the side.
@30 FTW
Wait, Dan. You read “The Myth of Monogamy”, right? So what’s new with this book? That one is by two scientists and collects lots of research that shows that sexual monogamy is extremely rare in the mammal world; in particular they make a very compelling case that humans were not naturally monogamous. So what now, even more evidence has surfaced? Big surprise…
One mistake some commenters make: “natural” and “unnatural” seems like a loaded word for them (“natural”=good). Actually, we are talking about facts. “Natural” only means this: it develped and existed like this in nature, and changed only very recently. Concerning non-monogamy in humans, this is pretty much an established fact, from what I read. But “natural” doesn’t necessarily mean good!!
I think that the most dangerous myth about monogamy is that it is supposed to be easy. That’s the one this book is trying to dispell.
The asexual spouse is a completely different question. You can’t have sexual fidelity to someone who isn’t actually having sex with you. Celibacy is not monogamy.
14’s point is a good one: I might struggle a bit now and then with monogamy — nowhere near enough of a struggle to fail at it — but I know for a fact that I am a miserable failure at non-monogamy, having been dragged through it by the girlfriend two prior to my wife. (Yes, plenty of the people wanting multiple partners are women, and plenty of the people wanting only one partner are men.) For me, between those two choices monogamy is the easier one BY FAR.
Hi. Chris Ryan, co-author of Sex at Dawn here. Thought I’d join the party, if that’s ok. I can clarify a few points that have been raised, starting with the most important: Dan is not getting a cut! No way, no how.
Now, with that out of the way . . .
— Our approach takes what we consider to be the strongest aspects of Evolutionary Psychology (some of the methodology) to dispute what the weakest (the fairy-tale telling). Hard core followers of EP will hate the book because we question their central narrative: men have always traded meat and protection for female sexual access and fidelity, and this is the origin of the nuclear family. So our book certainly can’t be considered a standard EP text.
— Those who’ve questioned whether we “prove” anything, are right. At most, we hope we make a compelling case, but it’s true that in these sorts of matters, scientists never consider anything “proven.”
— We are definitely not the first to argue that humans didn’t evolve in a monogamous social context, but most of those who have made similar points before argued that our ancestors were polygynous (one alpha male with several females—like gorillas). Very few have argued that our ancestors probably followed a multi-male/multi-female mating system. (But certainly others have, whom we cite in our book.)
— The Moral Animal is a great book, very informative and beautifully written. In fact, it’s the book that first got me interested in this material back when it first came out. We dispute some of what Wright presents there, but we highly recommend his book.
— Finally, as Dan points out here, we’re not recommending any particular response to the information we present in our book, other than a deepened sense of self-knowledge, more sincere conversations with potential mates, and (perhaps) better-informed decisions about the best path forward. I seriously doubt many people marry intending to cheat on their husband/wife or that many men decided to become priests already planning to abuse kids. But when we put ourselves in situations that deny and distort these essential aspects of our being, we get into trouble pretty quickly. Our ambition for Sex at Dawn is to help at least some people avoid all this unnecessary suffering.
Thanks for your interest, and thanks to Dan for plugging our book (for free!).
CPR
(Sorry if this is a double-posting. I got lost in the registration process.)
Hi. Chris Ryan, co-author of Sex at Dawn here. Thought I’d join the party, if that’s ok. I can clarify a few points that have been raised, starting with the most important: Dan is not getting a cut! No way, no how.
Now, with that out of the way . . .
— Our approach takes what we consider to be the strongest aspects of Evolutionary Psychology (some of the methodology) to dispute the weakest (the fairy-tale telling). Hard core followers of EP will hate the book because we question their central narrative: men have always traded meat and protection for female sexual access and fidelity, and this is the origin of the nuclear family. So our book certainly can’t be considered a standard EP text.
— Those who’ve questioned whether we “prove” anything, are right. At most, we hope we make a compelling case, but it’s true that in these sorts of matters, scientists never consider anything “proven.”
— We are definitely not the first to argue that humans didn’t evolve in a monogamous social context, but most of those who have made similar points before argued that our ancestors were polygynous (one alpha male with several females—like gorillas). Very few have argued that our ancestors probably followed a multi-male/multi-female mating system. (But certainly others have, whom we cite in our book.)
— The Moral Animal is a great book, very informative and beautifully written. In fact, it’s the book that first got me interested in this material back when it first came out. We dispute some of what Wright presents there, but we highly recommend his book.
— Finally, as Dan points out here, we’re not recommending any particular response to the information we present in our book, other than a deepened sense of self-knowledge, more sincere conversations with potential mates, and (perhaps) better-informed decisions about the best path forward. I seriously doubt many people marry intending to cheat on their husband/wife or that many men decided to become priests already planning to abuse kids. But when we put ourselves in situations that deny and distort these essential aspects of our being, we get into trouble pretty quickly. Our ambition for Sex at Dawn is to help at least some people avoid all this unnecessary suffering.
Thanks for your interest, and thanks to Dan for plugging our book (for free!).
CPR
Heterosexuality is natural. We evolved to desire to mate with the opposite sex, so that we could pass on our genes. Homosexuality is extremely rare in the animal world. What the fuck does that prove?
There are monogamous and non-monogamous people. If you’re non-monogamous and in a relationship with a monogamous person, you’re in for trouble. Ditto if you’re straight and in a relationship with a gay person.
@sexatdawn: EP is still such a fairy tale machine I’m really scared to take anything that looks like EP. I don’t take Dan’s endorsement very seriously since it sounds like the book just proposes reasons for things that Dan already believes (the “just-so stories” quality of EP that I find dubious).
Hopefully discussion of this book will leak over to the skeptical and science blogs that I read. It might now that Dan has it on his blog. I guess I just feel like I really need to be paranoid as a non-expert with this stuff, since I personally can’t tell the BS from the well-argued.
Also, Dan,
“monogamy is unrealistic and—this is not a word I toss around lightly—unnatural”
“my point in drawing your attention to it — isn’t that monogamy is unnatural”
Which is it?
@lowalan: Your skepticism is well-founded, and you’re wise to be cautious about blindly accepting findings you don’t have the background to evaluate—especially in EP, which is riddled with politics disguised as science.
If you take a look at our web site (sexatdawn.com), you’ll see a few reviews (I’ll add more as they come in), including one from Seed magazine, which has pretty serious scientific creds. The guy who wrote the review has done graduate work in primatology at Duke and is now working on his Ph.D. in the History of Science. Also, you’ll see several blurbs from pretty serious folks (M.D.s and researchers). None of this means our arguments are necessarily correct, but it should give you some sense that at least some people who would recognize bullshit didn’t find it, and are willing to say so on the record.
CPR
@36
While “natural” doesn’t necessarily mean good, the term is in fact often employed to promote or eradicate certain behaviors, just as it is in sex at dawn. In many people’s minds, “good” is only a short leap away from “natural”.
Regardless, the idea that monogamy is “natural” or “unnatural” is complete and utter bullshit. Billions of people have stuck with one partner, billions of others have slept around. Which group you fall into isn’t dictated by your genes or some neural reflex.
If there’s anything “natural” about human behavior, it’s our ability to adapt and change with the situation.
I love the quote from the serial cheater. She reads some pop science and suddenly realizes that her behavior is okay; she is not in fact a double dealing skank that regularly betrays her husband. She’s just wired that way!
@36 — Whoever said monogamy is easy?? I was told by my fundamentalist preachers it was hard. One of the very few thinngs they were right about.
No relationship style is easy for a person not inclined to it. And mismatches are always trouble.
@38 Chris makes a critical point here: “scientists never consider anything ‘proven.'” There is no such thing as scientific proof (mathematicians aside). BUT scientists do support (or negate) hypotheses. And it looks like Chris and Cacilda are making a great stab at reinterpreting all sorts of established observations and formulating a better theory of human sexuality.
@35 makes a good point.
I’m curious; are the authors of the book in monogamous relationships?
@46 – If you haven’t yet done so, go read the excerpts on the website.
@50 – I doubt it, considering the views I saw on monogamous marriage relationships.