A very interesting read! I wasn't sure what to expect after hearing about this book on the radio, but something told me I would enjoy it - and I definitely did. The first two thirds of the book focused primarily on history, past studies and how people felt about sex (or sexuality) and mating. The last third pulled all this information together and compared it to how we feel today, in our recent past, and how we may feel about it in the future. In my opinion the author never pushed his own agenda or feelings about how one should feel about sex, but instead presented different interpretations and views to help the reader do their own thinking. Once I finished the book I didn't feel like I was just told what to think, but simply had a lot more to think about.

Wow. I love this book. It had the power to change my mind about our shared past, social and sexual beliefs and present attempts to form a more realistic and compassionate code of ethics. Carefully researched and thoughtfully and humorously presented, I'm recommending it to everyone who is open to reading it

Without denying the seriousness of the authors's intent, "Sex at Dawn" is one of the most entertaining books I've read in awhile. The authors, Cacilda Jetha, a medical doctor, and Christopher Ryan, a psychologist, argue that human beings are not inherently monogamous and that our collective civilizational effort to shoehorn people into life-long pair-bonds goes against our biological heritage and has led to much unnecessary misery. They stake this claim on a considerable amount of reading into recent anthropological, primatological and genetic research; specifically, they say that, as humans share roughly 99% of their DNA with chimps and bonobos, and as neither of those species practices monogamy (and in fact no primate, except the gibbon, does), our own genetic inheritance tends towards polyamory. In fact, they trot out examples from such indigenous cultures as the Mosuo in China to argue that pre-historic humans were most likely not monogamous: widespread promiscuity promoted bonding among members of extended hunter-gatherer clans, reduced inter-group tension, and promoted sperm competition as females had sex with multiple male partners and rival sperm competed for the right to fertilization.

It's not hard to understand why "Sex at Dawn" has been embraced by sexologists while primatologists and anthropologists have been noticeably cooler in their reception.The book is like a bomb thrown not only against the very notion of monogamy but also against the standard narrative in anthropology that pair-bonding is universal in human societies because women trade sexual access for food and protection. The authors make little effort to conceal their impatience and irritation with this 'standard narrative' and, indeed, much of "Sex at Dawn" reads as though it were written by an exasperated zealot (or over-ambitious grad student) who can't fathom why everyone else remains so in the dark. At the very least, it's not boring.

But the book should probably be taken with more than a few grains of salt. First of all, "Sex at Dawn" rehashes an already well-worn Enlightenment-era belief in the uninhibited 'noble savage,' uncorrupted by the restraints of civilization. Rousseau was, of course, a proponent of this and Diderot's "Supplement to the Voyages of Bougainville" pretty much encapsulates Ryan and Jetha, albeit with more wit. As others have pointed out, there are instances of monogamous indigenous peoples too that the authors don't really consider. Also, they don't really respond to one of their central theses: if the adoption of agriculture was such a disaster (sexually and in terms of quality of life) for human beings, why did they persist with it? If agricultural village settlements forced human beings into a monogamous corset, why then did they persist with it for 6,000 years before the advent of the first civilizations?

Finally, Ryan and Jetha stake much of their argument on asserting that 99% of human being's DNA overlap with that of bonobos, the most sexually promiscuous primates. Yet, we share the same percentage (99%) with chimps who are more territorial, aggressive, and somewhat less promiscuous than bonobos. Essentially, by privileging bonobos Ryan and Jetha over-correct previous writers's (like Jared Diamond) tendency to focus on our chimp heritage: we really need a book that tries to relate both our chimp and bonobo genetic backgrounds together.

Still, for a book so steeped in academic research, it's a blast to read, except when the authors start to consider the implications of their own argument. Having spent 300 pages explaining how monogamy is so unnatural and sexual exclusivity is probably the main cause of marital failure (in their view), they then shy away from any prescriptive advice. They don't quite want to push marriage over a cliff and advocate polyamory (for males, anyway; they're even more reticent interestingly enough on the implications of their argument for female behavior) but the logic of the book tends in that direction. But, as Freud argued, we are stuck with civilization and its neuroses whether we like them or not. Thus, they can't quite advocate free love (not as long as we have private property, anyway) but they insist that marriage is a botch too. For all its strident confidence in our biologically-driven amorality, "Sex at Dawn" ends by waffling all over the place.

I did love reading it, however, even when I recognized that the authors were pushing their case too far. At the very least, it gets you thinking about why so many marriages and pairings fail, why cheating is so rampant, and whether there is indeed an evolutionary legacy that is inimical to our social arrangements (rather than just instances of individual moral failure).

While the book presented some interesting scientific and historical research and factoids, it felt incomplete and slanted by challenging others rather than presenting the theory in an objective way. In proving that humans are biologically non-monogamous, it seemed more geared towards the male species and how they are wired with some smattering of information about women.

Esther Perel has touched upon the gender differences while noting that statistically men and women are as likely to cheat. The authors reference her in some aspects but as with the rest of the book, it seems to cherry pick rather than be more thorough in presenting their findings.

While the authors added a note to address why they provided an anecdote of Phil only, it seemed lazy to do so by not looking for some anecdotes or analysis of women's sex drives and motivations, even if complicated, and breaking down such complexities to also note whether women are as biologically wired to be non-monogamous as well.

Honestly, everyone should read this book. It could save your relationship with your partner and with yourself.
Even if you can't wrap your head around humans evolving from animals, taking into account animal behavior when considering how we as humans have changed over the years is eye opening.
The final chapters shed light on human sexual behavior in ways I never considered. It has helped me understand men better and I'm sure will help my marriage and that of my sons.
I'm grateful for finding this book and reading it all the way through. It's unlike any book I've ever read.

Incredible to discover the answers to so many questions (and wrong assumptions) we’ve all had about human sexuality and fascinating to see the pains we’ve gone to as a species to control that same sexuality. Especially eye opening (as a man) to learn about the suppression strategies employed by society to desexualize women. Say good bye to shame and ignorance and say hello to greater understanding, wisdom, and compassion for the sexual needs and well being of yourself and others.

While a relatively easy read and presenting some interesting and new (to me) information, I didn't really see a central idea here other than people like sex and, as a western society, we're doing it wrong.

Okay, point taken. So, what's the right way?