lightreads: a partial image of a etymology tree for the Indo-European word 'leuk done in white neon on black'; in the lower left is (Default)
Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern SexualitySex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality by Christopher Ryan

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


My girlfriend and I had one of those gradual comings-together where you're going along fine, life is good, and then you look up one day and . . . wait . . . hang on . . . you're dating that person you thought you were just sleeping with. (For the record, some of us *cough* figured this out much sooner than others of us.) When it happens like that, it's hard to figure out what "counts," if you care about that sort of thing -- anniversaries, firsts, all those markers of 'real relationshipness.' Luckily, neither of us cares what counts. Just, sometime over the past five years, we got to The Thing -- The Real Thing -- and that's cool.

Except the part where it isn't cool is that there are a lot of other people who care about what counts. They care a lot. To a lot of people, we can't have The Real Thing, and not because we're both women. No, see, it doesn't matter how much our lives have glommed over the past five years, or how we collectively meet her cancer diagnosis and me conceiving a child to carry as my sister's surrogate. None of that counts because we occasionally sleep with other people, together and separately. Because if you do that, well, that's not a relationship at all.

Which has never made sense to me on a logical level, or an instinctive one. Monogamy might be nice for some people (some of my best friends are monogamists, dontcha know), though more often it looks to me like it makes everyone ashamed and unhappy. But for me . . . no. I mean, I've been in monogamous relationships for years at a time, once before I knew what I wanted, and once after I had started to suspect but couldn't experiment to find out, because if your partner is not down with it like mine wasn't, then obviously you respect that. And I just . . . it's not that I was unhappy. Or not just that I was unhappy. I did not feel like myself. I felt like the person I was being in the relationship was untrue on some fundamental level of existential being. That sort of thing wears you down from the inside over time. And I strongly suspect it's a bit like being a closeted gay person trapped in a heterosexual relationship.

Anyway. So this book (woo! I got there!). This book is all about how our cultural investment in monogamy doesn't make sense. Or at least how the narratives we're told about it are bullshit. You know this story: men don't want to be in relationships, but they need fidelity from women to be sure the children are really theirs (because otherwise why spend any resources raising them?), and so women trap men into relationships with their sneaky hidden ovulation, but what they're really doing is trading access to their vaginas for resource stability. It's the pigs and prostitutes model. The one that gets used to defend patriarchy, gender inequality, you name it, because it's biology, don't you know.

This book is about how it's crap, and how it doesn't make sense given what we know about pre-historic sexuality, about multiple partner procreation now and in the past, and our evolution. It's also a pretty snotty bitchslap to evolutionary psychology which, well, yes.

I totally dug it, because it made sense out of a lot of stuff that has never made sense to me. (And the last quarter in particular has some great stuff about different arousal patterns that just -- yes, thank you.) I just really really wish it was less pop and more science, because honestly the thing this book convinced me of the most is that the vast majority of anthropological work has all the scientific rigor of a wet noodle. And I wish this book supplied more of that rigor, since it demonstrated very clearly that the material is there. Also that it was a bit more careful not to continuously fall into the same stereotyped patterns of thinking about gendered behavior that it is chiding its readers for, but, you know, lack of rigor.




View all my reviews
lightreads: a partial image of a etymology tree for the Indo-European word 'leuk done in white neon on black'; in the lower left is (Default)
I’ve been pushing this book at pretty much everyone I saw this past weekend, so a lot of you have already gotten an earful. For the rest of you: find this book, read this book, give it a long hard mull. For it is awesome.

Right, so. The first half of this book deals with the way American law and culture addresses – and mostly fails to address – sex and children. From the unsurprising indictment of sex-ed to the discussions of the misogyny and powerlessness perpetuated by statutory rape laws, it’s a grim but utterly fascinating picture. The second half of the book offers up alternative solutions, snapshots of successful pilot programs, memorable and pointed anecdotes. This book is frank, inclusive, nuanced. Levine is entirely unwilling to leave anything to implication, and her frankness about the reality of the sexualized behavior children display as early as two or three is only part of the reason her road to publication was so rocky, as outlined in the introduction. This is a book about sex and culture and parenting, but it’s also a vicious but controlled screed against conservative politics, social inequality, sexism. It’s about all the things we aren’t doing that could help American children grow up into respectful, responsible sexual partners, and it’s also about all the things we are doing which perpetuate gender inequality and lead to unsafe behavior and even kill our country’s kids.

Levine is a powerful writer, with a real knack for picking effective, thought-provoking statistics. The second half of the book is far more anecdotal than prescriptive, which I didn’t really mind. Partly it’s that this book was -- and is -- groundbreaking as a holistic, unified treatment of the topic, and the research data for some of the suggestions simply doesn’t exist yet. Levine does make some odd stylistic choices – I would have reversed the presentation of the sex-ed material and the chapter on pedophilia and child sexual predators (that’s child predators, as well as the adult kind) but I can see her reasoning. I also would have liked a more complete treatment of child sexual abuse within the family, but honestly that’s not what this book is about.

What this book is about is information. The kind we receive as children is inadequate at best, flat out harmful at worst. Levine argues in concert with a long-held instinct of mine, and she has the research to back it up: exposing children to a saturation of sexual images and information which is positive, diverse, and inclusive is not only healthy, but absolutely essential for saving them grief, pain, and possibly death. And we might just make life better for women and minorities while we’re at it.

Seriously, read this book. Not everyone will agree with all of it. I certainly didn’t – I made a bet with myself halfway through, paused to look up Levine’s biography, and went ‘yep, thought so,’ when her Libertarianism popped up. But this is the sort of book which is meant to sew discussion, and the thought behind it, and maybe some action.

Profile

lightreads: a partial image of a etymology tree for the Indo-European word 'leuk done in white neon on black'; in the lower left is (Default)
lightreads

June 2025

S M T W T F S
123456 7
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 13th, 2025 07:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios