Dressed up as a biological and anthropological history, this credentialed couple’s vehement argument against monogamy comes across less as a scientific investigation into the nature and state of human sexuality and more like a troll cherry picking evidence to justify why he (I’m very consciously using he) should be allowed to sleep with whoever he wants. 

The method: From the get-go the duo make no bones that they have an agenda to argue against monogamy and that their main source of inspiration stems from the dubious historical view promoted by Jared Diamond in which the agricultural revolution was the worst thing to ever happen to humanity. Both this and that work have been criticized for their omissions; the most obvious to me in “Sex at Dawn” is the complete avoidance of any discussion concerning consent. In fact, rape is mentioned as if it is simply a part of life in certain species, and in the only mention I recall of it concerning humans it is considered a result of repression and sexual frustration. Sexual and gender fluidity is also barely mentioned in the book. What we know about the sexual practices of humans prior to written history is practically nothing, all conjecture, so the authors use present day rationalization to theorize the behavior of animals from tens of thousands of years ago. There is plenty of room for disagreement.

The argument: Anyone can look at the divorce rate and rampant cheating in modern society, know some basic facts of human biology, and wonder if we are indeed meant to be monogamous. It’s a fair question to ask, along with asking why divorce rates are so high, cheating so common, rape and sexual abuse/assault so prevalent, etc. but it does no favors to start with your answer and work backwards, which is what this book does. The amount of contradictions within their evidence found in their arguments is high as well, i.e. frequently citing evolution then proposing that we should currently be behaving like we did 200,000 years ago. The book avoids an honest investigation of compelling questions about human nature to prove they’re right. 

The read: Yet still it is an interesting read. It’s a shame that their method throws doubt on most of the evidence included, because there are a ton of interesting things to consider. I won’t recommend this book because it is poor scholarship, but if you have the discipline to follow it up with sources more reputable on the subject then it is an entertaining read and a solid example of how not to make a case for something.